DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/maineinnortheast01burr 


The  Initial  Boundary  Monument  at  the  Source  of  the  St.  Croix  River.  See  Page  XIII. 


MAINE 

% \ 

IN  THE 

Northeastern  Boundary 
Controversy 


BY 

HENRY  S.  BURRAGE,  D.  D., 
STATE  HISTORIAN. 


Printed  for  the  State 


Copyrighted  1919 
By  Henry  S.  Burr.'VGE,  D.  D. 


Marks  Printing  House 
Portland,  Me. 


r 


To 

James  Phinney  Baxter,  D.  L,itt. 

Whose  Historical  Researches  and  Writings 
Make  a Barge  Contribution 
To  THE  History  of  the  State  of  Maine 
This  Volume  Is  Inscribed 
In  Recognition  of  Long  and  Valuable  Services 


4059^0 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 


Chapter. 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 
V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 


The  St.  Croix  as  a Boundary  Prior  to 
1783  .... 

The  Treaty  at  Paris  and  the  Begin- 
nings OF  THE  Boundary  Controversy 
The  St.  Croix  Commission  . 

The  Boundary  in  Passamaouoddy  Bay 
The  Search  for  the  “Highlands” 
Maine  Enters  the  Boundary  Contro- 
versy .... 

Boundary  Differences  Referred  to 

THE  King  of  the  Netherlands 
Boundary  Disturbances  at  Mad  aw  ask  a 
The  King’s  Award  Rejected 
Preparations  for  Negotiation 
Maine  Carries  Her  Case  to  Washing- 
ton .... 

Other  Surveys 
The  Aroostook  War 
Complaints  under  the  New  Agree- 
ment .... 

Projects  and  Counter-Projects 
Both  Sides  Marking  Time  . 

Webster’s  Proposal  Accepted 
The  Ashburton-Webster  Negotiation 
The  Ashburton  Treaty  Ratified  . 

The  Treaty  in  Maine 
The  Treaty  in  the  British  Parliament 
Maine  Right  in  Her  Contention 
The  Final  Settlement 


1-19 

20-41 

42-67 

68-92 

93-115 

116-151 

152-174  • 
175-193 
194-211  • 
212-230 

231-246 

247-256 

257-275 

276-289 

290-  302 

303-311 

312-327  ♦ 

328-342. 

343-352 

353-362 

363-372 

373-382 

383-389 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


The  Initial  Boundary  Monument  at  the  Source  of  the  St. 

Croix  River  ....  Frontispiece 

facing  page 

St.  Croix  Island  from  the  Maine  Side  of  the  St.  Croix 

River  ......  2 

Champlain’s  Map  of  St.  Croix  Island,  1604  . . 16 

The  Memorial  Tablet  at  St.  Croix  Island  . . 18 

Champlain’s  Sketch  of  Buildings  on  St.  Croix  Island, 

1604  .......  32 

First  Page  of  Instructions  by  George  III  to  the  British 

Commissioner,  Colonel  Thomas  Barclay  . . 42 

James  Sullivan  ......  44 

John  Holmes  ......  78 

Mars  Hill  ......  102 

William  King  ......  118 

Albion  K.  Parris  . . . . . 122 

Enoch  Lincoln  ......  128 

Charles  S.  Daveis  .....  136 

The  John  Baker  Memorial  . . . . 150 

John  G.  Hunton  .....  160 

William  Pitt  Preble  .....  166 

Samuel  E.  Smith  . . . . . 184 

George  Evans  ......  196 

Peleg  Sprague  ......  208 

Signatures  to  Commissioners’  Report  . . . 214 

Robert  P.  Dunlap  .....  220 


VIII 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Edward  Kent 
John  Fairfield 
Reuel  Williams  . 

Fort  Fairfield 
Blockhouse  at  Fort  Kent 
Daniel  Webster  . 

Israel  Washburn 
Ford  Ashburton  . 
Blockhouse  at  Fort  Fairfield 


226 

234 

236 

262 

274 

312 

324 

328 

368 


MAPS. 


facing  page 

Mitchell’s  Map,  1745  .... 

34 

Sullivan’s  Map,  1795  .... 

48 

Dashiell’s  Map,  1830  . . . .’ 

170 

Maine  as  Bounded  by  the  Treaty  of  1842 

336 

PREKACK. 


In  this  volume  I bring  together  the  results  of  studies  long 
continued  with  reference  to  the  northeastern  boundary  of  Maine 
and  our  controversy  concerning  it.  My  interest  in  this  contro- 
versy was  awakened  in  1878,  when  Governor  Washburn  read  in 
Portland,  at  a meeting  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  a paper 
entitled  The  Northeastern  Boundary,  published  later  in  the  eighth 
volume  of  the  first  series  of  that  society’s  collections.  In  1894, 
the  late  Honorable  George  L.  Rives,  of  New  York,  assistant 
secretary  of  state  in  President  Cleaveland’s  first  administration, 
published  Selections  froin  the  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay, 
his  great-grandfather,  who  was  the  British  commissioner  on  the 
St.  Croix  Commission  (1796-1798)  for  the  settlement  of  differ- 
ences that  had  arisen  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
as  to  the  true  St.  Croix  River  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  Later  the 
Maine  Historical  Society  received  from  Mr.  Rives  ‘ (page  43, 
note)  the  valuable  collection  of  boundary  letters  and  documents 
once  belonging  to  Colonel  Barclay,  and  which  he  had  used  in  the 
preparation  of  his  Selections.  Mr.  Rives’  volume,  and  the  manu- 
scripts mentioned  as  the  gift  of  Mr.  Rives  to  the  Maine  Historical 
Society,  I carefully  examined  at  the  time,  and  from  them  derived 
material  for  a paper  entitled  The  St.  Croix  Commission,  which  I 
read  at  a meeting  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  February  6, 
1895,  and  which  was  published  in  the  sixth  volume  of  the  second 
^Maine  Historical  Society  Coll._,  Second  Series,  VI,  249,  250. 


X 


PREFACE. 


series  of  the  Collections  of  that  society.  The  preparation  of 
another  paper,  The  Attitude  of  Mahie  in  the  Northeastern  Boundary 
Coyitroversy , read  by  the  writer  at  a meeting  of  the  Maine  Histor- 
ical Society  January  2,  1903,  and  published  in  the  first  volume  of 
the  third  series  of  the  society’s  Collections,  was  suggested  by  an 
added  study  of  boundary  matters  as  considered  in  Professor 
William  F.  Ganong’s  valuable  monograph,  Evolution  of  the  Bound- 
aries of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  published  in  1902  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada.  Another  collection  of 
valuable  manuscript  boundary  material,  known  as  the  Ward 
Chipman  papers,  came  into  the  possession  of  the  Maine  Histor- 
ical Society  in  1894,  the  gift  of  a member  of  the  society,  Mr. 
William  H.  Kilby,  of  Eastport.  Ward  Chipman  was  the  British 
agent  connected  with  the  St.  Croix  Commission,  and  these  papers 
which  came  into  Mr.  Kilby’s  possession  by  a noteworthy  chance 
(page  49,  note),  comprised  important  correspondence  and  other 
manuscript  material  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  My 
examination  of  these  papers  from  time  to  time,  as  opportunity 
offered,  still  further  quickened  my  interest  in  boundary  concerns. 

Accordingly  in  1914,  when  the  state  had  published  my  Begin- 
nings of  Colonial  Maine  (a  work  relating  to  a period  in  Maine 
history  that  had  an  earlier  claim  upon  my  attention),  I found  the 
way  open  for  an  added  and  more  thorough  examination  of  this 
large  and  valuable  boundary  material.  I also  directed  attention 
to  the  volumes  of  manuscript  boundary  correspondence  and  doc- 
uments in  the  State  Library  in  Augusta,  of  the  great  value  of 
which  I had  long  been  aware.  Unfortunately  the  important  cor- 
respondence of  the  governors  of  Maine  with  the  state  department 
in  Washington  closes  abruptly  with  the  year  1839.  Inquiry  and 
search  at  the  State  House  in  Augusta  have  not  brought  to  light 
the  manuscript  correspondence  of  1840-1842. 


PREFACE. 


XI 


Two  comparatively  recent  books  I have  found  especially  help- 
ful in  matters  relating  to  the  boundary  and  the  controversy 
concerning  it.  One  of  these  is  Professor  John  Bassett  Moore’s 
History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations , the  first  volume 
of  which  opens  with  a scholarly  presentation  of  the  prominent 
facts  connected  with  the  successive  attempts  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States  to  settle  the  boundary  controversy;  and 
besides  the  footnotes,  here  and  there  on  the  following  pages,  I 
desire,  in  these  added  words,  to  give  expression  to  the  aid  I have 
received  from  Dr.  Moore’s  monumental  work.  The  other  book 
of  which  I wish  to  make  special  mention  is  Professor  Ganong’s 
Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick, 
already  referred  to  in  this  preface.  Although  written  from 
another  point  of  view  than  my  own.  Professor  Ganong’s  work, 
the  fruit  of  a long  and  thorough  examination  and  study  of  the 
same  boundary  problems,  has  been  of  very  great  assistance. 

A large  part  of  the  winter  of  1915-1916,  I spent  in  the  Library 
of  Congress,  availing  myself  of  the  facilities  for  historical  research 
afforded  by  its  very  large  collections  of  books,  manuscripts  and 
maps.  My  thanks  are  due  to  the  librarian.  Dr.  Herbert  Putnam, 
and  also  to  his  assistants,  for  helpfulness  generously  rendered. 
For  prompt  answer  to  many  calls,  my  thanks  are  also  due  to  the 
librarian  of  the  Maine  State  Library  in  Augusta,  Rev.  H.  E. 
Dunnack,  and  his  assistant,  Rev.  W.  F.  Livingston;  also  to  Miss 
Alice  C.  Furbish,  librarian  of  the  Public  Library  in  Portland  with 
its  large  collection  of  congressional  publications  and  of  bound 
files  of  Maine  newspapers;  also  and  especially  to  Miss  Evelyn 
Gilmore,  librarian  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society  in  Portland, 
and  her  assistant.  Miss  Ethel  P.  Hall,  who,  with  unwearied  dili- 
gence, have  been  of  great  help  in  bringing  to  my  aid  the  manu- 
script and  other  information  in  the  Historical  Society’s  large 


XII 


PREFACE. 


accumulations  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary  controversy. 
To  them,  also,  I am  indebted  for  valuable  assistance  in  securing 
photographic  and  other  likenesses  of  early  Maine  governors  and 
persons  prominent  in  Maine’s  contention  with  reference  to  the 
boundary.  For  added  illustrative  material  my  thanks  are  due  to 
the  Honorable  Seth  S.  Thornton  and  Mr.  Thomas  P.  Packard, 
superintendent  of  schools,  both  of  Houlton;  also,  to  Mr.  E.  M. 
Blanding,  of  Bangor;  Mrs.  Katharine  K.  Estes,  of  Fort  Fairfield; 
Mr.  E.  Percy  Waddington,  of  Mars  Hill;  Mr.  Edward  D.  Noyes, 
of  Portland;  and  Mrs.  Susan  Grant  Smith,  of  Wiscasset.  In  my 
search  for  the  portraits  in  this  volume  I made  much  effort  to 
include  one  of  John  G.  Deane,  who  was  so  prominent  in  the 
boundary  controversy  after  Maine  became  a state;  and  I greatly 
regret  that  the  effort  was  unsuccessful. 

While  these  pages  have  been  passing  through  the  press,  Mr.  S. 
H.  Brown,  manager  of  the  Marks  Printing  House  in  Portland, 
has  assisted  me  in  many  ways.  I am  also  indebted  to  Miss  Flora 
M.  Mitchell,  of  the  same  establishment,  for  excellent  work  in 
overcoming  the  illegibilities  in  my  manuscript  and  also  in  proof 
suggestions. 

In  connection  with  the  celebration  of  Maine’s  first  centennial 
in  1920,  the  publication  of  this  volume  is  certainly  fitting.  Dur- 
ing the  past  one  hundred  years  the  state  has  had  a very  honorable 
part  in  many  affairs  of  national  interest  and  importance;  but  in 
the  boundary  controversy  it  was  very  largely  left  to  Maine  alone 
to  meet  and  resist  the  pretensions  of  British  diplomacy.  That 
service  was  most  creditable  from  first  to  last;  and  in  any  review 
of  it  we  certainly  cannot  forget  that  it  was  because  of  Maine’s 
strong  and  unwearied  efforts  that  a large  and  valuable  part  of  our 
state  territory  was  held  within  the  national  domain. 

Kennebunkport,  September  16,  1919. 


THE  INITIAL  MONUMENT. 


XIII 


THE  INITIAL  MONUMENT. 


The  initial  boundary  monument  at  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix 
River,  erected  in  1799  in  accordance  with  the  declaration  of  the 
St.  Croix  Commission,  was  a cedar  post.  About  five  feet  south 
of  it  a large  yellow  birch,  about  eight  feet  and  five  inches  in 
diameter,  was  hooped  with  iron  about  ten  feet  from  the  ground. 
On  the  due  north  line  to  the  St.  John  River  from  that  point  an 
opening  through  the  forest  was  cut,  thirty  feet  wide,  fifteen  feet 
on  each  side  of  the  line,  with  markers  placed  at  certain  distances. 
In  1817,  John  Johnson,  United  States  surveyor,  and  Colonel 
Joseph  Bouchette,  H.  B.  M.  Surveyor  General,  erected  a new 
initial  marker  a few  feet  north  of  the  first,  consisting  of  a cedar 
post  twelve  feet  long  and  eight  inches  square,  with  large  support- 
ing stones  on  the  east  and  west  sides.  The  one  on  the  east  side 
was  marked  “N.  B.  July  31,  1817,  J.  B.”  ; that  on  the  west,  “U. 
S.  July  31,  1817,  J.  J.”  British  Dominions  in  North  America,  by 
Joseph  Bouchette,  Volume  I,  page  14.  In  1843,  two  boundarj- 
commissioners,  J.  B.  Bucknall  Estcourt  (British)  and  Albert 
Smith  (United  States),  appointed  under  the  Ashburton  treaty  of 
1842,  replaced  the  initial  cedar  post  by  erecting  a large  iron  mon- 
ument {Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  IV,  171),  which 
on  the  east  side  had  the  inscription,  “Ut.  Col.  J.  B.  B.  Estcourt, 
H.  B.  M.  Com’r.”;  and  on  the  west  side  “Albert  Smith,  U.  S. 
Com’r.”;  also  on  the  north  side  “Treaty  of  Washington,”  and 
on  the  south  side  “Boundary,  Aug’st  9th  1842.”  In  1908,  this 
iron  monument  was  reset  in  a concrete  base,  under  the  direction 


XIV 


THE  INITIAL  MONUMENT. 


of  Dr.  W.  F.  King,  H.  B.  M.  Boundary  Commissioner,  and  Mr. 
O.  H.  Tittmann,  U.  S.  Boundary  Commissioner.  Their  names 
and  the  names  of  the  attending  engineers,  C.  C.  Rainboth  (Brit- 
ish) and  J.  B.  Baylor  (United  States),  appear  on  the  concrete 
base,  with  the  date  “l908.”  The  frontispiece  shows  the  initial 
monument  as  it  appears  in  1919,  together  with  the  opening 
through  the  forest  on  the  due  north  line. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  St.  Croix  as  a Boundary  Prior  to  1783. 


HE  St.  Croix  River,  the  initial  treaty  boundary  between 
what  is  now  the  State  of  Maine  and  the  British  Province 
of  New  Brnnswick,  received  its  name  in  1604.  In  that 
year,  the  Sieur  de  Monts,  with  a body  of  colonists,^  was 
on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  North  America  in  the  interest  of  France, 
with  a commission  from  the  French  king  as  lieutenant  general 
and  governor  of  territory  from  the  fortieth  to  the  forty-sixth  par- 
allel, a wilderness  which  he  was  to  seize  and  hold  under  the  name 
of  Acadia.^  First  he  explored  the  shores  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy 
without  finding  a desirable  location  for  a settlement.  Then,  pro- 
ceeding down  the  coast  into  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  he  discovered 
and  entered  a large  river  of  such  wonderful  attractiveness  under 
summer  skies  as  to  awaken  the  enthusiasm  and  admiration  of  his 
entire  company.  Upon  an  island  in  the  middle  of  this  river,  and 
“a  league  or  more  from  its  mouth,”  de  Monts  planted  his  colony; 
and  finding  some  distance  above  this  island  that  branches  of  the 
river  enter,  suggesting  the  form  of  a cross,  he  gave  to  the  island 
the  name  Isle  de  Sainte  Croix®  (the  Island  of  the  Holy  Cross),  both 
the  river  and  the  island  receiving  the  same  designation.  This  is 

^The  expedition  sailed  from  Dieppe,  France. 

^For  extracts  from  the  patent  of  Acadia,  granted  November  8-18,  1603,  to 
de  Monts  by  Henry  IV  of  France,  see  the  Farnham  Papers,  Maine  Historical 
Society,  Documentary  Series,  I,  1-6. 

® Of  great  interest  is  the  map  of  the  country  in  which  de  Monts  wintered, 
published  by  Champlain  in  1613.  On  it  the  St.  Croix  River  is  clearly  repre- 
sented, a flagstaff  and  flag  indicating  the  location  of  the  settlement;  while 
the  three  branches  of  the  river,  farther  up,  make  the  cross  that  suggested 
the  name  of  the  island  and  of  the  river.  Champlain' s Voyages,  Prince  Soci- 
ety, 1878,  I,  32. 


2 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


not  the  place  for  an  account  of  the  hardships  endured  by  the  de 
Monts  colonists  on  St.  Croix  Island  during  the  winter  of  1604-1605. 
Champlain,  the  geographer  of  the  expedition  and  the  most  distin- 
guished member  of  the  company,  has  told  the  story  of  its  hard- 
ships in  the  first  volume  of  his  Voyages,^  hardships  so  severe  that 
thirty-five  of  the  seventy-nine  colonists  miserably  perished  during 
the  long,  severe  winter  that  followed,  hardships  which  with  the 
arrival  of  spring  hastened  the  abandonment  of  the  location.^  But 
the  name  St.  Croix,  designating  both  the  island  and  the  river,  has 
survived,  not  always  in  the  memory  of  men,  but  in  narratives, 
grants  of  land,  treaties  and  documents  of  various  kinds. 

Notwithstanding  this  added  westward  movement  on  the  part  of 
France — she  had  in  the  preceding  century  taken  possession  of  ter- 
ritory farther  north,  moving  inland  by  way  of  the  waters  of  the 
St.  Fawrence — England  was  by  no  means  unmindful  of  the  oppor- 
tunities for  colonization  which  the  discovery  of  the  new  world 

1 Prince  Society  Ed.,  I,  50-52. 

2 An  interesting  glimpse  of  life  on  St.  Croix  Island,  before  the  severities  of 
that  icy  winter  fnlly  descended  upon  the  colonists,  is  given  by  Prof.  W.  F. 
Ganong:  “One  of  the  methods  used  by  the  young  gentlemen  to  keep  up  their 
spirits  during  the  -winter  deserves  special  mention.  They  appear  to  have  cir- 
culated a kind  of  periodical,  called  the  ‘Master  William,’  which  was,  as 
E’Escarbot  tells  us,  ‘stuffed  with  all  kinds  of  news.’  Such  was  the  first  peri- 
odical of  this  valley,  and  it  is  possible  for  the  antiquary  to  claim  that  the  first 
literary  periodical  of  America  was  the  ‘Master  William,’  circulated  (of  course 
in  written,  not  printed,  copies),  at  Dochet  [a  later  designation  of  St.  Croix] 
Island,  in  the  winter  of  1604-1605.  But  a single  quotation  from  it  has  been 
preserved.  E’Escarbot  tells  us  that  it  said  among  other  things  that  Sieur  de 
Monts  ‘did  pull  out  thorns  in  Canada,’  an  expression  seemingly  equivalent 
to  our  phrase  ‘draw  the  teeth,’  or  subdue.  But  the  chief  interest  in  this  pas- 
sage is  that  it  serves  to  suggest  to  E’Escarbot  an  expression  of  his  admiration 
for  such  enterprises  as  that  of  Sieur  de  Monts,  for  he  adds:  ‘And  when  all 
is  said  it  is  very  truly  pulling  out  thorns,  in  taking  in  hand  such  enterprises 
full  of  continual  perils  and  fatigues,  of  cares,  anguish  and  discomforts.  But 
the  virtue  and  the  courage  which  subdues  everything  makes  these  thorns  but 
carnations  and  roses  to  those  who  are  determined  on  heroic  actions  to  com- 
mend themselves  to  the  memory  of  men,  and  close  their  eyes  to  the  pleasures 
of  those  effeminates  who  are  good  only  for  chamber-guards.’  ’’  Maine  His- 
torical Society  Coll.,  Third  Series,  II,  119. 


St.  Croix  Island  from  the  Maine  Border. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


3 


had  opened,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh’s  expeditions  having  made  their 
way  to  the  American  coast,  farther  down,  in  the  closing  decades 
of  the  sixteenth  century.^  If  those  expeditions  brought  only  dis- 
appointment to  their  promoters,  hope  was  not  destroyed.  In  1602 
Gosnold  was  on  the  coast,  as  was  Pring  in  1603,  Waymouth  in 
1605,  and  Pring  again  in  1606.  In  that  same  year,  1606,  James  I 
gave  charters  to  two  companies  for  the  purpose  of  planting  English 
colonies  in  America,  one  of  these,  the  Eondon  Company,  receiv- 
ing a grant  of  territory  between  the  thirty-fourth  and  forty-first 
degrees  of  north  latitude ; and  the  other,  known  as  the  Plymouth 
Company,  receiving  a grant  of  territory  partly  overlapping  that 
of  the  London  Company  and  extending  from  the  thirty-eighth  to 
the  forty-fifth  degrees.^  Settlements  at  Jamestown,  Virginia,  and 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Kennebec  soon  followed. 

The  grant  to  the  Plymouth  Company  was  a denial,  on  the  part  of 
England,  of  any  French  territorial  claim  because  of  de  Mont’s  tem- 
porary settlement  at  St.  Croix  Island.  This  denial  was  affirmed 
by  the  destruction  of  the  French  Jesuit  colony  near  Southwest 
Harbor,  Mount  Desert,  by  Argali,  in  1613.  In  1619,  by  petition, 
the  Plymouth  Company  made  a request  of  the  king  that  the  terri- 
tory they  had  received  might  be  known  as  New  England,®  and  in 
granting  the  request  James  I,  in  1620,  extended  the  company’s 
limits  from  the  fortieth  degree  to  the  forty-eighth,  thus  carrying 
the  British  claims  still  farther  north.^  New  boundaries  in  the 
northern  part  of  this  territory  appeared  in  1621,  in  a grant  made 
by  the  king  to  Sir  William  Alexander,  the  king’s  secretary  of 
state  and  favorite,  the  territory  being  described  as  follows:  “all 

Early  English  and  French  Voyages,  New  York,  Charles  Scribner’s  Sons, 
223-321. 

Farnham  Papers,  I,  6-12. 

®The  designation  was  gjven  by  Captain  John  Smith,  and  first  appeared  in 
print  in  his  Description  of  New  England,  in  which  he  records  what  he 
learned  concerning  that  part  of  the  coast  of  North  America  in  the  summer  of 
1614. 

Far nham  Papers,  I,  20-45. 


4 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  singular  the  lands,  continents  and  islands,  situate  and  lying 
in  America,  within  the  cape  or  promontory,  commonly  called  Cap 
de  Sable,  lying  near  the  latitude  of  forty-three  degrees,  or  there- 
about, from  the  equinoctial  line  northward,  from  which  promon- 
tory, toward  the  coast,  verging  to  the  west,  to  the  harbor  of  Sancta 
Maria,  commonly  called  Sanctmareis  Bay,  and  thence  northward, 
traversing,  by  a right  line,  the  entrance,  or  mouth  of  that  great 
naval  station  which  runs  out  into  the  eastern  tract  of  the  land 
between  the  countries  commonly  called  Surequois  and  Stechimines, 
to  the  river  commonly  called  by  the  name  of  Sancta  Crux,  and  to 
the  remotest  source  or  fountain  on  the  western  side  of  the  same, 
which  first  discharges  itself  into  the  aforesaid  river,  and  thence, 
by  an  imaginary  right  line,  which  might  be  conceived  to  proceed 
through  the  land,  or  to  run  northward  to  the  nearest  naval  sta- 
tion, river,  or  source,  discharging  itself  into  the  great  river  of 
Canada,  and  proceeding  from  it  by  the  sea  shores  of  the  same 
river  of  Canada,  eastward  to  the  river,  naval  station,  port,  or 
shore,  commonly  known  and  called  by  the  name  of  Gathepe,  or 
Gaspie,  and  thence  south  eastward  to  the  islands  called  Baccaloes, 
or  Cap  Britton,  leaving  the  same  islands  on  the  right,  and  the 
gulph  of  the  said  great  river  of  Canada,  or  great  naval  station, 
and  the  lands  of  Newfoundland,  with  the  islands  pertaining  to  the 
same  lands,  on  the  left,  and  thence  to  the  cape  or  promontory  of 
Cap  Britton,  toward  the  south  and  west  to  the  aforesaid  Cap  Sable, 
where  the  circuit  began.  This  boundary  description  is  signifi- 
cant, not  only  as  having  a place  in  “the  first  national  patent  that 

Farnham  Papers,  I,  59,  60.  “When  we  remember  that  the  1621  boundary 
was  to  run  through  to  the  St.  Lawrence  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix, 
we  can  scarcely  doubt,  with  Champlain’s  map  before  us,  that  the  branch  run- 
ning farthest  up  towards  the  St.  Lawrence,  i.  e.,  our  present  Chiputneticook 
branch,  was  the  one  intended  as  the  boundary,  and  not  the  short  western 
branch.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  long  branch  shows  at  its 
head  three  branches,  and  it  would  seem  probable  even  to  certainty  that  the 
words  ‘western  source’  were  added  in  order  to  decide  which  one  of  these 
three  was  to  form  the  boundary.  ’ ’ Ganong,  Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of 
the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada, 
Second  Series,  1901-1902,  VII,  170. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


5 


ever  was  clearly  bounded  within  America  by  particular  limits 
upon  earth’  ’ ^ (to  use  the  language  of  Sir  William  Alexander) , 
but  as  establishing,  in  language  from  which  later  descriptions 
have  liberally  borrowed,  the  St.  Croix  River  as  the  western  bound- 
ary of  Nova  Scotia.  It  is  in  this  charter,  also,  that  “Nova  Scotia” 
is  mentioned  as  the  designated  name  “in  all  time  to  come”  * of 
the  territory  described. 

France,  however,  had  not  lost  sight  of  her  interests  on  the 
north  Atlantic  coast;  and  April  24,  1629,  at  Susa  in  Piedmont, 
she  concluded  a treaty  of  peace  and  goodwill  with  Great  Britain, 
in  which  the  kings  of  the  two  countries  renewed  “the  ancient 
alliances  betwixt  them,”  and  came  to  some  agreements  that  were 
to  find  expression  in  a later  treaty. . In  accordance  with  these 
agreements,  it  is  inferred,  France,  expecting  that  in  the  forthcom- 
ing treaty  Acadia  would  be  restored  to  her,  made  a cession  of  that 
country  to  the  Company  of  New  France,*  an  organization  designed 
to  advance  French  interests  in  that  part  of  the  new  world.  In 
turn,  this  company.  May  14,  1632,  granted  lands  adjoining  “the 
river  and  bay  of  St.  Croix”  to  Isaac  de  Razillai,  who  was  made 
governor  of  Acadia.  In  this  grant  mention  was  made  of  “St. 
Croix  Island,”  where  de  Monts  wintered — a reminder  of  a French 
territorial  claim  based  on  that  earlier  French  occupation  on  the 
Atlantic  coast. 

The  later  treaty,  which  was  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain,  con- 
tained a promise  on  the  part  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain  ‘ ‘to  give 
up  and  restore  all  places  occupied  in  New  France,  Acadia  and 
Canada  by  the  subjects  of  the  king.”  Naturally  the  French 
understood  the  language  of  the  treaty  as  implying  the  cession  not 
only  of  “places”  in  Acadia,  but  of  the  whole  country  included 
under  that  designation.  Charles  I,  however,  denied  any  purpose 
or  even  thought  of  restoring  to  France  anything  more  than  the 
language  of  the  treaty  indicated,  namely  “places”  occupied  by  the 

^Slafter’s  S'zV  William  Alexander,  Prince  Society,  197. 

Farnham  Papers,  I,  60. 

3lb.,  I,  172. 


6 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


British.  Writing  to  the  Scottish  Privy  Council  not  long  after  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain  was  signed  (May  29,  1632),  he  made  this 
statement:  “We  have  never  meaned  to  relinquish  our  title  to  any 
part  of  these  countreyis;”  and  he  directed  Sir  William  Alexander 
“to  go  on  in  the  said  work,”  that  is  of  colonization,  promising  to 
protect  him  and  those  associated  with  him,  and  also  to  compensate 
them  in  case  he  should  oblige  them  to  withdraw  at  any  time — a 
glimpse  of  the  crooked  workings  of  a Stuart  mind.  The  insin- 
cerity of  the  king  is  not  concealed  by  his  pretensions.^  Even 
with  the  king’s  declaration  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  treaty.  Sir 
William  could  have  found  little  satisfaction  in  the  thought  that 
though  “places”  only  had  been  restored,  the  rest  of  Acadia  was 
his;  and  it  may  have  been  in  an  endeavor  to  soothe  his  wounded 
feelings  that  the  Council  for  New  England  in  1635,  in  connection 
with  the  surrender  of  the  great  patent,  granted  to  William,  Lord 
Alexander,  a son  of  Sir  William  Alexander,  “all  that  part  of  the 

main  land  of  New  England beginning  from  a certain 

place  called  or  known  by  the  name  of  St.  Croix  next  adjoining 
to  New  Scotland  in  America and  from  thence  extend- 

ing along  the  sea  coast  unto  a certain  place  called  Pemaquid  and 
so  up  the  river  thereof  to  the  farthest  head  of  the  same  as  it  tend- 
eth  northward  and  extending  from  thence  at  the  nearest  unto  the 
river  of  Kennebec  and  so  upward  along  by  the  shortest  course 
which  tendeth  unto  the  river  of  Canada,  from  henceforth  to  be 

^Gardiner,  History  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  1642-1649,  in  his  account  of  the 
close  of  Charles’  career,  makes  mention  of  the  king’s  duplicity  as  an  estab- 
lished characteristic,  IV,  327,  328:  ‘‘Men  who  would  have  been  willing  to 
come  to  terms  with  him,  despaired  of  any  constitutional  arrangement  in 
which  he  was  to  be  a factor;  and  men  who  had  long  been  alienated  from  him 
were  irritated  into  active  hostility.  By  these  he  was  regarded  with  increas- 
ing intensity  as  the  one  disturbing  force  with  which  no  understanding  was 
possible  and  no  settled  order  consistent.  To  remove  him  out  of  the  way 
appeared,  even  to  those  who  had  no  thought  of  punishing  him  for  past 
offences,  to  be  the  only  possible  road  to  peace  for  the  troubled  nation.  It 
seemed  that  so  long  as  Charles  lived  deluded  nations  and  deluded  parties 
would  be  stirred  up  by  promises  never  intended  to  be  fulfilled.” 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


7 


called  and  known  by  the  name  of  the  county  of  Canada.  ’ ’ ^ The 
river  St.  Croix  in  this  way  still  remained  the  western  boundary  of 
Nova  Scotia,  while  it  became  the  eastern  boundary  of  this  new 
grant  covering-  the  territory  between  Nova  Scotia  and  Sir  Ferdi- 
nando  Gorges’  Province  of  Maine. 

Not  long  after,  at  the  death  of  William,  Lord  Alexander,  the 
grant  reverted  to  Sir  William,  his  father,  who  apparently  paid 
little  attention  to  it,  probably  on  account  of  unfavorable  condi- 
tions at  home  in  connection  with  the  Civil  War  in  England;  and 
with  the  lapse  of  years  the  grant  became  extinct.  In  the  revival 
of  colonial  interests  under  Cromwell,  it  was  assumed  that  British 
rights  in  the  new  world  not  only  included  the  Acadia  of  the  Alex- 
ander grant,  but  carried  the  western  boundary  of  that  territory  as 
far  as  “Pentecost  and  the  river  of  St.  George  to  Muscontus  [Mus- 
congus]  situate  upon  the  confines  of  New  England.”^  This 
removal  of  the  boundary,  however,  received  short  recognition,  for 
when  Charles  II,  in  1664,  granted  to  his  brother,  James,  Duke  of 
York,  territory  now  a part  of  the  State  of  Maine,  the  river  St. 
Croix  was  again  mentioned,  the  grant  being  the  same  as  that 
made  to  William,  Lord  Alexander,  the  language  descriptive  of  its 
boundaries  evidently  being  borrowed  from  that  used  in  the  Alex- 
ander grant,  as  follows:  “All  that  part  of  the  main  land  of  New 
England  beginning  at  a certain  place  called  or  known  by  the  name 
of  St.  Croix  next  adjoining  to  New  Scotland  in  America  and  from 
thence  extending  along  the  sea  coast  unto  a certain  place  called 
Petuaquine  or  Pemaquid  and  (so)  up  the  river  thereof  to  the  fur- 
thest head  of  the  same  as  it  tendeth  northwards  and  extending 
from  thence  to  the  river  of  Kinebequi,  and  so  upwards  by  the 
shortest  course  to  the  river  of  Canada  northward.”® 

^ Farnham  Papers.,  I,  190. 

^Commission  of  Colonel  Thomas  Temple  by  Oliver  Cromwell,  September 
17,  1656.  Farnham  Papers,  I,  283. 

Farnham  Papers,  I,  306.  See  also  the  Baxter  MSS.,  IV,  190,  195, 
where  the  grant  is  given  in  full,  and  is  followed  by  interesting  papers  con- 
cerning Nova  Scotia  and  the  Pemaquid  country. 


8 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


But  by  the  treaty  of  Breda,  July  21,  1667,  Charles  II  agreed  to 
restore  Acadia  to  France,^  and  in  letters  patent,  a year  later,  he 
described  the  restoration  as  including  “all  that  country  called 
Acadia,  lying  in  North  America,  which  the  said  most  Christian 
king  did  formerly  enjoy,  as  namely  the  forts  and  habitations  of 
Pentagoet,  St.  John,  Port  Royal,  la  Heve  and  de  Cape  Sable,”  ^ 
language  which  by  its  mention  of  places  formerly  in  possession  of 
the  French  king  would  seem  to  indicate  that  Charles  was  ceding 
no  more  than  was  included  in  the  cession  made  by  his  father,  as 
already  mentioned.  However,  as  later  he  abandoned  British 
claims  to  Acadia,  directing  Colonel  Thomas  Temple  not  only  to 
surrender  the  places,  but  to  withdraw  from  the  country,  he  seems 
to  have  accepted  the  French  understanding  of  the  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain.  Such  a cession  aroused  much  British  ire. 
Colonel  Temple  at  first  refusing  to  obey  the  order  he  had  received 
“until  his  majesty’s  pleasure  be  further  known  both  as  to  the 
bounds  and  limits  of  Acadia  and  Nova  Scotia,  there  being  no 
places  mentioned  in  my  order,  but  Ta  Heve  and  Cape  Sable,  that 
belong  to  Acadia,  and  the  rest  of  the  places  mentioned,  viz.,  Pen- 
tagoet, St.  John’s  and  Port  Royal  are  in  Nova  Scotia,  bordering 
upon  New  England.”  ® When,  however,  in  1669,  the  king’s  pur- 
pose was  reafiirmed,  and  Colonel  Temple  was  required  to  give 
up  to  the  French  all  the  mentioned  places  without  further  delay, 
the  whole  Penobscot  country  was  included  in  this  restoration. 
Nevertheless  the  old  British  claim  persisted,  and  Sir  Edmund 
Andros’s  commission  from  James  II,  in  1688,  made  him  captain 

general  and  governor-in -chief  of  “all  that  tract  of  land 

in  America from  forty  degrees  of  northern  latitude 

1 Farnham  Papers,  I,  311. 

2 Memorials  of  the  English  and  French  Commissaries,  584,  cited  by  Ganong, 
Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  185.  See  also  Farnham 
Papers,  I,  312. 

^Ganong’s  Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  in  Transac- 
tions of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  Second  Series,  1901-1902,  186. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


9 


to  the  river  of  St.  Croix  eastward.”^  In  this  way  the 

St.  Croix  River  once  more  comes  into  view  as  the  boundary 
between  New  England  and  Acadia. 

The  Revolution  in  England  in  1688,  which  brought  to  an  end 
the  reign  of  the  Stuarts,  had  far-reaching  results.  The  abdica- 
tion of  James  II,  in  December  of  that  year,  and  the  succession  of 
William  and  Mary  to  the  throne  in  February,  1689,  brought  also 
to  an  end  the  government  of  Andros.  His  arrest  and  deportation 
followed  in  April,  and  a provisional  government,  established 
“according  to  charter  rights,”  assumed  the  management  of  New 
England  affairs  until  the  new  province  charter,  of  October  7,  1691, 
was  received,  incorporating  “the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth,  the  Province  of  Maine,  the  terri- 
tory called  Acadia  or  Nova  Scotia,  and  all  that  tract  of  land  lying 
between  the  said  territories  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  said  Province 
of  Maine,”  into  one  province  to  be  known  as  the  Province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England,^ 

Notwithstanding  this  British  claim  and  action,  by  which  the 
territory  covered  by  the  designations  Acadia  and  Nova  Scotia  was 
included  in  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  France  continued 
to  assert  her  right  to  the  country  and  occupied  Port  Royal.  Sep- 
tember 10,  1697,  the  peace  of  Ryswick  again  restored  Acadia  or 
Nova  Scotia  to  the  French,  rendering  of  no  effect  the  conquests 
made  in  that  country  by  the  British  in  what  was  known  as  King 
William’s  war,  while  even  the  Sagadahoc  territory  again  became 
disputed  territory.®  In  fact,  this  peace  was  a truce  only.  In 
1702,  England  and  France  were  again  at  war.  Port  Royal  was 
retaken  by  the  English  in  1710;  and  in  1713,  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  “all  Nova  Scotia  or 
Acadia,  with  its  ancient  boundaries,  also  the  city  of  Port  Royal, 
at  this  time  called  Annapolis  Royal,  and  all  other  things,  in  those 
parts,  which  depend  on  the  said  lands  and  islands,  together  with 

^ Farnham  Papers,  I,  380. 

2lb.,  II,  5,  6. 

8lb.,  II,  28. 


10 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  dominion,  propriety  and  possession  of  the  said  islands,  lands 
and  places,  and  all  right  whatsoever  by  treaties,  or  by  any  other 
way  obtained,”  were  made  over  “to  the  queen  of  Great  Britain 
and  to  her  crown  forever.”  ^ 

In  the  later  colonial  period  differences  arose  at  times  with  refer- 
ence to  the  western  boundary  of  Acadia,  Massachusetts  insisting 
that  by  her  charter  of  1691  she  came  into  possession  of  the  ancient 
Sagadahoc  country;  while  Nova  Scotia  asserted  claims,  or  ad- 
vanced suggestions  of  claims,  covering  territory  within  Sagadahoc 
limits.  Thus  in  1719,  Governor  Phillips,  who  had  been  made 
governor  of  Placentia  and  captain  general  and  commander-in- 
chief of  Nova  Scotia,  writing  to  the  Tords  of  Trade  from  Boston, 
while  on  his  way  to  Port  Royal,  said;  “l  meet  with  many  old 
patents  granted  to  people  of  New  England  never  yet  produced  for 

appi-obation , lying  in  a part  called  the  king  s territory 

between  New  England  and  Nova  Scotia,  and,  as  I imagine,  under 

the  government  of  the  latter, likewise  many  old  Indian 

grants  for  vast  tracts  in  the  same  territory  which  never  had  the 
sanction  of  any  government.”  In  a subsequent  letter,  he  men- 
tions these  lands  as  ‘ ‘lying  between  the  rivers  of  Kennebec  and 
St.  George”  and  adds,  “the  bounds  between  the  government  of 
Nova  Scotia  and  New  England  are  not  declared.”^  Again,  in 
1732,  the  Nova  Scotia  government,  inferring  from  ancient  bound- 
aries that  its  authority  extended  to  the  river  St.  George,  made 
surveys  west  of  the  St.  Croix.*  W^ith  the  increase  of  settlers  in 
both  provinces  as  the  century  advanced,  boundary  matters  became 
increasingly  important.  Thus  in  February,  1762,  a committee  of 
the  General  Court  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  appointed 
to  take  into  consideration  the  bounds  between  that  province  and 
Nova  Scotia,  stated  in  a report  that  according  to  Sir  William 
Alexander’s  patent  the  St.  Croix  River,  to  the  head  thereof  and 
the  remotest  westernmost  branch  or  stream,  and,  from  thence,  by 
Earn ha7n  Papers,  II,  33,  34. 

2 Murdoch,  History  of  Nova  Scotia,  I,  359,  360. 

^ Nova  Scotia  Archives,  II,  84. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


11 


an  imaginary  line  to  run  north  to  the  river  St.  Lawrence,”  was 
the  boundary.  But  w’hich  of  the  three  very  considerable  rivers 
that  empty  into  Passamaquoddy  Bay — the  Cobscook,  the  Schoodic 
and  the  Magaguadardc — was  the  St.  Croix  of  the  boundary,  was 
a question  which  the  members  of  the  committee  either  raised,  or 
found  had  already  been  raised;  for  each  one  of  the  three,  at  some 
time  and  in  some  way,  had  been  known  by  the  designation  St. 
Croix. ^ In  their  suggestion,  “That  by  the  first  voyage  made  by 

the  French,  who  gave  the  name  to  the  river  St.  Croix, 

the  said  river  may  be  ascertained,”  the  committee  indicated  a 
source  of  information  that  was  to  be  singularly  fruitful  later, 
when  the  period  of  controversy  was  reached  and  search  made. 
How  very  imperfectly,  however,  the  members  of  the  committee 
apprehended  the  significance  of  their  owm  reflections  is  revealed 
in  the  added  suggestion  that  “one  or  more  gentlemen  be  appointed 
by  this  Court  to  join  with  such  as  may  be  appointed  by  the  Prov- 
ince of  Nova  Scotia,  to  repair  to  said  river  St.  Croix  and  to  deter- 
mine upon  the  place  where  the  said  north  line  is  to  begin,  and  to 
extend  said  line  as  far  as  the  said  commissioners  shall  think  it 
necessary,  and  to  ascertain  the  same  by  marked  trees  or  other 
boundary  marks.”  ^ Meanwhile,  until  the  matter  should  receive 
further  consideration,  it  was  agreed  by  both  parties  that  no  added 
grants  of  land  should  be  made  in  the  disputed  territory  until 
action  pertaining  to  the  boundary  should  ha  been  taken. 


By  the  treaty  of  Paris,  February  10,  1763;  France,  as  the  clos- 
ing act  in  a long,  losing  conflict,  ceded  to  Great  Britain  the  w'hole 
of  her  North  American  possessions  except  two  small  islands, 
which  were  “to  serve  as  a shelter  to  the  French  fishermen.”  ® In 

^This  transfer  of  designation  is  easily  explained.  Since  the  St.  Croix 
received  its  name  from  de  Monts,  the  St.  Croix  region  had  not  known  unin- 
terrupted occupation  by  any  one  nation.  At  times  the  French  were  in  pos- 
session, and  at  times  the  British;  and  such  occupation,  by  either  France  or 
Great  Britain,  failed  in  the  establishment  of  settlements  in  which  ancient 
traditions  would  be  kept  alive. 

^ The  General  Court  appointed  William  Brattle  and  James  Otis  for  this 
service.  Acis  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Massccchusetts  Bay,  VII,  310. 

^ Farnham  Papers,  II,  58. 


i 


3 


12 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  same  year,  evidently  to  meet  the  wishes  of  both  Massachu- 
setts and  Nova  Scotia,  the  river  St.  Croix  was  again  designated 
by  Great  Britain  as  the  boundary  between  the  two  provinces. 
Forthwith  the  importance  of  securing  actual  surveys  of  the  bound- 
aries occurred  to  the  Massachusetts  authorities,  and  Sir  Francis 
Bernard,  governor  of  the  province,  employed  for  this  purpose 
John  Mitchell,  possibly  the  Jno.  Mitchell,^  who,  in  1755,  prepared 
the  large  map  of  the  British  and  French  possessions  in  North 
America,  instructing  him  to  proceed  to  the  bay  of  St.  Croix  or 
Passamaquoddy,  to  survey  the  coast  between  the  rivers  St.  Croix 
and  Passamaquoddy,  and  also  the  rivers  themselves.  In  prepar- 
ing his  instructions,  the  governor  seems  to  have  had  before  him 
Captain  Cyprian  Southack’s  map  of  1733  and  John  Mitchell’s  map 
of  1755,  upon  which  these  two  rivers  appear,  both  entering  Passa- 
maquoddy Bay,  the  Passamaquoddy  (in  Mitchell’s  map  spelled 
Passamacadie)  at  the  northwestern  extremity,  and  the  St.  Croix 
at  some  distance  eastward.  Having  finished  his  survey  of  the 
west  side  of  the  bay  and  of  the  Passamaquoddy  River,  the  sur- 
veyor was  to  give  his  attention  to  the  east  side  and  the  St.  Croix 
River.  “When  you  get  to  the  head  of  the  river,  you  will  find  a 
pond,^  which  you  must  delineate  as  exactly  as  you  can,  and  par- 
ticularly find  out  the  most  northern  point  of  it,  so  as  to  set  it 
down  in  your  plan.”  When  this  had  been  done,  there  were 
added  directions  as  follows:  “One  of  you  [that  is  Jones  or 
Fletcher  of  Mitchell’s  assistants],  or  both  if  you  please,  with  a 
party  assisted  by  Indians  with  their  canoes,  must  cross  by  the 
usual  portage  from  the  pond  into  the  river  Madanwamkee,  which 
falls  into  the  Penobscot  and  will  carry  you  all  the  way  to  Fort 
Pownall  with  the  stream.  This  whole  passage  must  also  be  sur- 
veyed.” ® The  map  of  1755  represents  a short  portage  connecting 

1 Kilby,  Eastport  and  Passamaquoddy,  91. 

*Such  a pond,  marked  “Kousaki  Iv.”  on  Mitchell’s  map  of  1755,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River. 

® Boundary  MSS.,  State  library,  VII,  57-60.  Mitchell’s  instructions  were 
dated  April  25,  1764. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


13 


Lake  Kousaki  with  smaller  lakes  and  a stream  entering  the  Penob- 
scot— another  indication  that  Governor  Bernard  had  before  him 
Mitchell’s  map  of  1755  when  he  prepared  his  instructions. 

Governor  Bernard’s  survey  may  have  been  suggested  in  connec- 
tion with  his  scheme  for  a new  arrangement  of  New  England  as 
outlined  by  him  in  the  following  year.  According  to  this  outline 
the  Province  of  Maine  was  to  be  extended  eastward  to  the  Penob- 
scot bay  and  river,  while  another  province,  still  farther  eastward, 
“would  contain  the  remainder  of  the  territory  of  Sagadahock, 
with  so  much  of  the  continent  of  Nova  Scotia  as  shall  be  thought 
proper  to  add  to  it;  for  instance  from  the  River  Penobscot  to 
the  River  St.  Johns.”  In  his  further  unfolding  of  the  scheme. 
Governor  Bernard  does  not  again  make  mention  of  the  river  “St. 
Johns,”  but  he  describes  the  parts  that  are  to  comprise  this  new 
province  as  in  the  meantime  (namely,  until  a suflScient  number  of 
people  can  be  secured  to  form  a government  of  their  own)  ‘ ‘divided 
by  the  bounds  of  Nova  Scotia,  that  is,  that  country  which  lies  on 
the  east  of  the  St.  Croix  to  remain  to  the  government  of  Nova 
Scotia,  and  that  which  lies  on  the  west  of  St.  Croix  to  remain  to 
the  government  of  Maine  and  Sagadahock.”  ^ 

While  this  scheme  was  receiving  the  attention  of  Governor  Ber- 
nard, he  sought  information  relating  to  de  Monts’  settlement  on 
St.  Croix  Island  in  1604,  evidently  moved  thereto  by  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  committee  of  the  General  Court  in  1762,  as  already 
mentioned.  In  his  search  he  used  L’Escarbot’s  account  as  found 
in  Purchas’  Pilgrimes,  also  Champlain’s  account  in  his  Voyages, 
published  in  1632.  His  purpose,  he  explained,  had  reference  to 
a proposed  settlement  in  that  locality  to  be  made  by  some  of  his 
friends;  and  the  matter  was  of  some  importance,  he  said,  since  in 
case  they  should  take  grants  on  the  west  side  of  the  St.  Croix 
they  might  hereafter  be  impeached  for  being  under  the  seal  of 
Nova  Scotia  and  out  of  its  boundary.^ 

Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Third  Series,  I,  339-343.  The  letter  in 
which  the  scheme  is  unfolded  is  in  a letter  addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Halifax, 
the  British  secretary  of  state,  and  is  dated  Nov.  9,  1764. 

"^Boundary  MSS.,  State  House,  Augusta,  VII,  236,  237. 


14 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


In  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  Governor  Bernard, 
Mitchell  and  his  assistants,  Nathan  Jones  in  command  of  the  sol- 
diers accompanying  the  party,  and  Captain  Fletcher  an  Indian 
interpreter,  made  their  way  to  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  In  his  field 
book,  under  date  of  Sunday,  June  3,  1764,  Mitchell  mentions  his 
purpose  to  go  with  his  party  to  the  St.  Croix  River  on  the  day 
following.  He  went,  however,  only  as  far  as  “Harbor  leeteet 
[L’Etete]  alias  Womkoocook,”  where  he  met  the  Indians,  who 
had  been  secured  as  guides,  and  had  a conference  with  them. 
The  record  in  the  field  book  for  June  3d  is  as  follows: 

“Sunday,  June  the  3d,  1764.  A foggy  morning,  the  wind  a 
S.  W.  Half  after  three  in  the  morning  Captain  Jones,  Mr.  Boyd, 
Mr.  Jones  and  myself  with  four  of  our  men  went  in  the  whale- 
boat to  Latterell  in  order  to  get  provisions  from  our  encampment, 
and  when  we  came  to  Latterell,  Captain  Fletcher  thought  it  most 
expedient  to  go  to  St.  Croix  the  next  day,  by  reason  that  the 
Indians  who  had  for  some  days  past  been  drunk  were  got  sober; 
so  Captain  Jones  ordered  the  men  that  came  with  us  to  go  back  to 
where  we  left  the  rest  of  our  men  in  order  to  bring  them  all  to 
Ratterell  to  be  ready  to  depart  on  Monday  morning  for  St.  Croix. 

“Monday,  June  the  4th,  1764.  A foggy  morning  and  calm  this 
morning.  Captain  Jones  employed  Mr.  James  Boyd  and  his 
whale  boat  and  Mr.  Walker  to  assist  us  to  carry  our  men  and 
provisions  to  the  river  of  St.  Croix  and  to  assist  us  up  said  river. 
One  half  after  eight  in  the  morning  we  departed  from  Latterell 
and  one  half  after  twelve  we  arrived  at  Harbor  leeteet  alias  Wom- 
koocook, where  we  met  with  the  Indians,  and  Captain  Fletcher 
had  a conference  with  them  and  the  Indians  appointed  two  to  go 
with  us  on  Tuesday  morning. 

“Tuesday,  June  the  5th,  1764.  This  morning  at  six  of  the 
clock  two  Sanops  and  two  squaws,  with  one  birch  canoe,  set  off 
with  us  in  order  to  go  with  us  to  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  we  pro- 
ceeded up  the  bay  about  two  miles,  and  the  wind  N.  W.  a fresh 
gale,  and  the  tide  against  us,  we  put  ashore  on  the  east  side  of 
the  bay  to  wait  till  the  tide  would  turn;  and  while  we  waited  for 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


15 


tide  of  flood  four  of  our  men  went  a little  way  from  the  shore  in 
the  whale-boat  a fishing  and  caught  one  halibut  and  three  small 
cod  fish;  and  at  young  flood  we  all  got  aboard  of  our  boats  and 
proceeded  towards  St.  Croix,  and  at  eleven  of  the  clock  we  arrived 
at  the  entrance  of  said  river,  at  which  time  Captain  Fletcher 
requested  three  of  said  Indians  to  swear  that  the  said  river  that 
they  showed  us  was  actually  known  by  the  name  of  St.  Croix 
river.  The  names  of  said  Indians  are  as  followeth,  L,ue  Nepton, 
Meesel  and  Mary  Cattron.  And  we  tarried  there  awhile  and  ate 
dinner,  then  went  up  said  river  to  the  falls,  and  then  the  Indians 
told  Captain  Fletcher  that  they  would  go  no  farther  and  the  falls 
being  so  large  that  we  could  not  get  the  whale-boat  over  it,  and 
it  being  impossible  to  go  on  the  land  to  survey  the  river,  I began 
a little  below  the  falls;  and  the  courses  are  as  followeth.”  ' 

This  river,  in  location  corresponding  with  the  St.  Croix  of  the 
map  of  1755  as  indicated  in  the  above  record,  and  confirmed  under 
that  name  by  the  Indians  of  Mitchell’s  party,  but  now  known  as 
the  Magaguadavic,  was  accepted  as  the  St.  Croix  of  the  boundary 
by  Governor  Bernard’s  surveyor,  who  proceeded  with  his  surveys 
and  completed  them  in  accordance  with  his  instructions.  Mitchell 
himself,  having  finished  his  work,  returned  to  Boston  from  Passa- 
maquoddy  Bay  by  sea,  taking  with  him  three  maps  of  the  bay  and 
the  St.  Croix  River,  which  he  delivered  to  Governor  Bernard. 
Some  of  the  members  of  his  party,  as  directed  in  his  instructions, 
made  their  way  homeward  by  way  of  the  portage  and  streams 
entering  the  Penobscot.^ 

^This  diary,  in  its  original  manuscript  form,  is  in  the  library  of  the  Maine 
Historical  Society,  Portland,  Maine.  Attached  to  it  is  the  deposition  of  John 
Mitchell,  dated  August  3,  1796,  and  with  it  is  the  statement  of  William  White, 
justice  of  the  peace,  that  ‘‘this  book  of  twenty-one  page  leaves,  and  a map, 
was  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  John  Mitchell  this  day  as  the  minutes  of  his 
survey  at  St.  Croix  and  the  country  at  the  Eastward  in  1764”;  also  that  in 
his  presence  he  delivered  the  same  to  James  Sullivan,  Esq.,  for  use  in  con- 
nection with  the  boundary  proceedings  before  the  St.  Croix  Commission. 

^Letter  of  Governor  Bernard  to  Governor  Wilmot  of  Nova  Scotia,  Feb.  9, 
1765.  Boundary  MSS.,  VII,  236. 


16 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Governor  Bernard,  however,  was  not  satisfied  with  the  report 
which  his  surveyor  brought.  As  has  already  appeared,  his  exam- 
ination of  evidence  furnished  by  Champlain  in  his  Voyages  had 
led  him  to  question  whether  the  St.  Croix  of  the  map  of  1755  was 
the  St.  Croix  of  de  Monts  and  Champlain,  and  therefore  the  St. 
Croix  of  the  boundary  between  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay 
and  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia.  His  doubts  were  increased  by 
Mitchell’s  report.  In  the  letter  to  Governor  Wilmot  cited  above, 
he  wrote:  “l  send  you  an  extract  from  Champlain  with  references 
to  a map^  of  the  upper  part  of  the  bay,  which  contains  all  the 
rivers  which  fall  into  it  from  whence  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
river  St.  Croix  is  not  that  which  the  Indians  lately  pointed  out, 
but  another  northwest  of  it.”^ 

These  investigations  with  reference  to  the  boundary  in  1764 
were  followed  in  1765  by  like  investigations  in  the  same  region 
under  the  direction  of  Charles  Morris,  the  surveyor  general  of  the 
Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  in  whose  hands  Governor  Wilmot  placed 
the  information  from  Champlain  that  he  had  received  from  Gov- 
ernor Bernard.  This  information  should  have  been  helpful  in  a 
search  for  the  ancient  St.  Croix,  but  the  surveyor  general  failed 
to  make  use  of  it  (perhaps  from  instructious  to  carry  the  line  as 
far  westward  as  possible),  identifying  the  St.  Croix  with  the 
Cobscook,  and  making  that  river  the  boundary  of  Acadia,  and  the 
assigned  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia.  The  points  of  identification 
mentioned  in  his  report,  however,  furnished  no  ground  even  for 
probability,  though  his  possible  support  from  Indian  testimony 
was  doubtless  of  as  much  value  as  the  testimony  of  the  Indians 
who  accompanied  Mitchell  to  the  Magaguadavic  and  upon  oath 
declared  that  river  to  be  the  St.  Croix. ^ 

Governor  Bernard’s  connection  with  matters  on  the  northeast- 

1 Mitchell’s  map  of  1755,  not  Champlain’s. 

Boundary  MSS.,  VII,  235. 

® Charles  Morris’  memorandum  for  Governor  Wilmot  entitled  Observations 
upon  Gov.  Bernard' s Remarks  on  the  Plans  of  Passamaquoddy  made  by  his 
direction  in  1764.  Boundary  MSS.,  VII,  217,  218. 


Champi.ain’s  Map  of  St.  Croix  Istand. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


17 


ern  boundary  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  however, 
were  not  long  continued.  As  the  royal  governor  of  the  province, 
he  found  himself  increasingly  out  of  sympathy  with  most  of  the 
colonists.  Doubtless,  for  all  of  the  oppressive  measures  of  which 
complaint  was  made,  he  was  not  responsible;  but  he  was  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  king  and  his  ministers,  and  in  administering 
the  affairs  of  the  province  in  their  interest,  and  not  in  the  interest 
of  the  people  as  w’as  made  known  to  him  in  many  ways,  he  found 
his  position  so  uncomfortable  at  length  that  in  the  summer  of 
1769  he  resigned  the  governorship  and  returned  to  England,  his 
departure  from  Boston  being  made  an  occasion  for  general  public 
rejoicings.^ 

Governor  Bernard’s  successor  was  Thomas  Hutchinson,  then 
lieutenant  governor  of  the  province,  though  he  did  not  receive 
his  commission  as  governor  until  1771.  In  the  early  part  of  his 
administration,  affairs  concerning  the  eastern  territory  of  the 
province  were  brought  to  his  attention.  One  matter  of  consider- 
able importance  had  reference  to  masts  suitable  for  use  in  the 
royal  navy.  For  many  years,  under  the  direction  of  a surveyor 
general  of  his  majesty’s  woods  in  North  America,  “such  masts 
had  been  obtained  from  the  forests  in  New  Hampshire  and  in  the 
western  and  central  parts  of  Maine.  Now,  with  the  settlement  of 
towns  in  eastern  Maine,  there  was  an  inquiry  for  such  masts  in 
this  new  country,  and  in  1771,  William  Brattle,  James  Bowdoin 
and  Thomas  Hubbard  were  instructed  to  obtain  the  required 
information  concerning  the  mast  supplies  that  the  forests  of  the 
region  between  the  Penobscot  and  the  St.  Croix  would  be  able  to 
furnish.  Another  consideration,  to  which  the  commissioners 
were  to  give  attention,  had  reference  to  the  boundary  between 
the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Nova  Scotia,  a definite 
understanding  with  Nova  Scotia  being  deemed  exceedingly  desir- 

^ “The  bells  were  rung  and  cannons  fired  from  the  wharves;  I/iberty  Tree 
was  gay  with  flags;  and  at  night  a great  bonfire  was  kindled  upon  Fort  Hill.’’ 
Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  VI,  291.  In  England,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  was  received  with  distinguished  consideration,  and  made  a baronet. 


2 


18 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


able.  From  their  report  it  appears  that  they  had  with  them 
Champlain’s  description  of  the  St.  Croix  River.  They  also 
secured  the  testimony  of  one  who  for  sixty  years  had  traded  with 
the  Indians  in  the  St.  Croix  region  and  knew  the  river  by  that 
name.  After  considering  such  information  as  they  were  able  to 
obtain,  they  came  to  this  decision:  “it  is  plain  to  us  that  the 
River  St.  Croix,  which  we  call  by  that  name,  and  which  is  east  of 
Passamaquoddy,  is  the  true  River  St.  Croix  and  the  eastern 
boundary  of  this  province  as  mentioned  in  the  charter.  Notwith- 
standing which,  we  are  well  informed  that  there  are  grants  made 
by  the  Governor,  or  Government  of  Nova  Scotia,  of  Grand  Manan, 
some  of  the  islands  of  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  and  of  land  upon  the 
main  and  settlements  thereon,  all  west  of  St.  Croix;  and  we  are 
also  informed  that  the  same  lands  are  very  good.”  ^ According 
to  this  report,  Champlain’s  description  seems  to  have  been  no 
more  helpful  to  these  commissioners  than  to  the  surveyor  general 
of  Nova  Scotia. 

The  colonial  period  was  now  drawing  to  a close.  From  the 
St.  Croix,  along  nearly  the  whole  length  of  the  Atlantic  seacoast, 
the  uprising  of  the  colonists  against  any  infringement  of  their 
liberties  was  already  in  progress.  Especially  was  this  true  in  the 
settlements  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  As  Governor 
Bernard,  by  his  endeavors  to  enforce  the  obnoxious  stamp  act, 
and  by  bringing  British  soldiers  from  Halifax  to  Boston,  found 
himself  unable  to  withstand  the  spirit  of  resistance  he  had  thereby 
awakened,  so  was  it  with  Governor  Hutchinson,  in  following  in 
Governor  Bernard’s  footsteps.  Hostility  to  his  administration, 
already  at  first  uncomfortably  strong,  was  greatly  increased  by 
events  connected  with  the  Boston  massacre,  and  later  by  his 
attempt  to  enforce  the  infamous  tea  tax.  Tainted,  because  of 
avarice  and  duplicity,  he  soon  found  himself  discredited  and  des- 
titute of  that  support  without  which  it  was  impossible  to  discharge 
his  ofiicial  duties  acceptably  either  to  himself  or  to  the  colonists; 
and  early  in  1774,  to  the  great  gratification  of  a large  proportion 


Boundary  MSS.,  II,  162,  163. 


De  Monts’  Coeony  Memorial  on  St.  Croix  Island 
Unveiled  June  25,  1904. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  RIVER  AS  A BOUNDARY. 


19 


of  the  people  of  the  province,  he  obtained  royal  permission  to 
leave  the  country.  Born  in  Boston,  son  of  one  of  its  prominent 
merchants,  a graduate  of  Harvard  College,  having  held  four  of 
the  highest  offices  in  the  province,  he  found  the  signs  of  a new 
era  more  and  more  distasteful  to  him;  and  on  June  1st,  going  on 
shipboard,  following  the  example  of  his  predecessor  in  the  gov- 
ernorship of  the  old  Bay  Colony,  he  sailed  for  England,  where  he 
spent  the  remainder  of  his  days. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Treaty  of  Paris  and  the  Beginnings  of  the 
Boundary  Controversy. 

T the  opening  of  the  Revolutionary  War  the  colonists 
indulged  the  hope  that  the  inhabitants  of  Canada  and 
Nova  Scotia  would  join  them  in  the  struggle  for  Amer- 
ican independence.  To  political  conditions  in  these 
remote  provinces  Washington  turned  his  attention  in  the  summer 
of  1775,  soon  after  assuming  command  of  the  army  at  Cambridge ; 
and  in  the  early  autumn  of  that  year  preparations  were  completed 
for  military  operations  designed  to  secure  in  these  British  posses- 
sions the  co-operation  of  liberty-loving  men.  In  an  address  to  the 
Canadians  in  connection  with  this  movement,  Washington  used 
these  words:  “The  cause  of  America  and  of  liberty  is  the  cause  of 
every  virtuous  American  citizen,  whatever  may  be  his  religion  or 
his  descent.  Come,  then,  range  yourselves  under  the  standard 
of  general  liberty.”  The  appeal,  however,  failed  to  awaken  the 
desired  response.  The  hopes  that  the  patriots  farther  down  the 
coast  had  ardently  entertained  were  soon  shattered  by  tidings  of 
the  disastrous  results  of  Arnold’s  expedition,  and  of  Montgomery’s 
lamented  death  before  the  walls  of  Quebec. 

No  similar  efforts  in  this  direction  were  made  at  any  later 
period  during  the  war.  In  both  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,'  how- 
ever, there  were  some  whose  aspirations  were  as  fervid  and  force- 
ful as  were  those  of  the  men  who  fought  on  Revolutionary  battle 
fields;  and  these,  sooner  or  later,  found  their  way  across  the  bor- 
der and  united  their  fortunes  with  those  fighting  for  American 
independence.  As  the  war  drew  to  a close,  however,  and  before 
it  was  known  on  which  side  victory  would  rest,  questions  with  ref- 

^The  Province  of  New  Brunswick  was  not  set  off  from  Nova  Scotia  until 
1784. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


21 


erence  to  the  boundary  between  Massachusetts  and  Nova  Scotia 
continued  to  be  raised.  Especially  was  this  true  among  those  who 
lived  near  the  border,  to  whom  it  was  a matter  of  no  slight  impor- 
tance whether,  with  the  return  of  peace,  they  would  be  left  in  the 
territory  of  those  with  whom  they  were  in  sympathy  as  to  gov- 
ernmental relations,  or  on  the  other  side.  The  Loyalists  who  had 
taken  refuge  at  Penobscot,  now  Castine,  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Penobscot,  were  drawn  thither  not  only  because  it  was  a British 
military  stronghold,  but  from  their  belief  that  the  close  of  the 
war  would  find  the  whole  Penobscot  country  under  permanent 
British  rule,  and  the  Penobscot  River,  not  the  St.  Croix,  the 
boundary  between  Massachusetts  and  Nova  Scotia.  Doubtless 
they  were  aware  of  the  king’s  intention,  in  the  construction  of 
Fort  St.  George  at  Penobscot,  to  furnish  security  for  the  Loyalists 
and  their  families  by  erecting  into  a province  the  tract  of  country 
that  lies  between  the  Penobscot  River  and  the  river  St.  Croix. ^ 
At  such  Loyalist  hopes  and  expectations  Massachusetts  aimed  a 
blow  in  dispatching  thither  the  Penobscot  expedition  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1779.  Its  disastrous  failure  was  a sore  disappointment  to 
patriot  hearts  throughout  New  England  and  beyond.  In  fact, 
it  served  only  to  strengthen  Loyalist  convictions  in  connection 
with  the  unfoldings  of  the  larger  royalist  scheme  in  their  behalf, 
approved  by  the  British  cabinet  August  10,  1780,  and  by  the  king 
on  the  following  day.  This  scheme  involved  the  separation  of 
the  “country  lying  to  the  northeast  of  the  Piscataway  River” 
from  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  the  erection  of  “so 
much  of  it  as  lies  between  Sawkno  [Saco]  River  and  the  St. 
Croix,  which  is  the  southwest  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia  . ’ 

into  a new  province,  which,  from  its  situation  between  the  New 
England  province  and  Nova  Scotia,  may  with  great  propriety  be 
called  New  Ireland.”^  Dr.  John  Calef,  formerly  of  Ipswich, 

^Letter  of  Lord  Germaine  to  Sir  Henry  Clinton,  September  2,  1775.  Col- 
lections of  New  Brunswick  Historical  Society,  No.  9,  525,  526. 

Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Third  Series,  I,  147,  148.  See  also  Ib., 
First  Series,  VII,  201-206,  and  Collections  of  New  Brunswick  Historicat 
Society,  No.  9,  485  and  seq. 


22 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Massachusetts,  as  agent  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  Penobscot  coun- 
try, was  in  London  in  the  summer  of  1780,  in  the  interest  of  these 
Loyalists. 

But  as  the  Revolution  drew  to  a close  this  proposed  colony  of 
New  Ireland  failed  to  find  a place  in  the  unfolding  of  new  world 
events.  It  is  said  that  the  scheme  ceased  to  receive  governmental 
support  after  the  appearance  of  an  opinion  rendered  by  Lord 
Loughborough,  the  attorney  general  of  England,  who  argued 
that  inasmuch  as  the  charter  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay 
made  the  river  St.  Croix  its  eastern  boundary,  its  rights  would  be 
invaded  if  either  the  Saco,  the  Kennebec  or  the  Penobscot  was 
made  the  eastern  limit  of  the  province.  Evidently  Doctor  Calef 
still  hoped  that  the  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia  would  be  carried  as 
far  westward  as  the  Penobscot;  but  after  he  had  spent  two  years 
in  England  in  the  interest  of  the  Penobscot  Loyalists,  the  failure 
of  his  mission  was  announced  one  day  by  Lord  North,  who 
declared  the  end  of  the  whole  matter  in  the  sorrowful,  doubtless 
agonizing  words,  “Doctor,  we  cannot  make  the  Penobscot  the 
boundary;  the  pressure  is  too  strong!”  ^ 

But  between  the  Penobscot  and  the  St.  Croix  rivers  there  were 
others,  who  had  not  been  dreaming  these  dreams  of  the  Loyalists 
in  the  Penobscot  territory,  or  those  of  the  king  and  his  ministers 
in  London.  They  were  the  settlers  in  the  scattered  communities 
of  eastern  Maine,  of  which  Union  River,  Gouldsboro,  Narragua- 
gus.  Pleasant  River  and  Machias  were  the  most  prominent.  In 
all  of  these  places  there  were  men  who  had  espoused  the  cause 
of  American  independence  and  were  ready  to  respond  to  any  call 
for  service  in  maintaining  it.  Especially  was  this  true  of  the 
men  of  Machias,  who,  beginning  with  the  capture  of  the  armed 
“King’s  Tender”  Margaretta,  June  12,  1775,^  exhibited  through- 
out the  struggle  a spirit  of  heroism  and  devotion  to  the  interests 
of  the  United  Colonies  without  which,  in  all  probability,  the  whole 

^ Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Third  Series,  I,  156,  157. 

2lb.,  Second  Series,  II,  1-17.  Baxter  MSS.,  XIV,  280-282. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


23 


country  east  of  the  Penobscot  would  have  fallen,  sooner  or  later, 
into  British  hands. ^ The  advanced  position  of  these  settlers  with 
reference  to  the  frontier  made  boundary  matters  not  only  impor- 
tant with  them  but  urgent.  The  presence  of  the  Loyalists  at 
Penobscot  in  large  numbers,  and  their  preparations  for  permanent 
occupation  by  the  erection  of  dwelling  houses,  etc.,  were  irritating 
evidences  of  cherished  purposes  concerning  the  removal  of  the 
western  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia  to  the  Penobscot;  and  the  rep- 
resentations made  by  these  Machias  and  other  settlers  to  the 
Massachusetts  authorities  concerning  these  well-known  Loyalist 
hopes  and  purposes  were  accompanied  by  strong  appeals  against 
any  territorial  abridgements  in  the  peace  arrangements  following 
the  war. 

In  any  reference  to  such  appeals  mention  should  be  made  of 
Colonel  John  Allan, ^ who,  although  born  in  Nova  Scotia,  and 
living  there  at  the  opening  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  heard  the 
appeal  for  American  independence,  and  finding  himself  out  of 
harmony  with  Nova  Scotians  generally,  leaving  valuable  posses- 
sions, he  fled  the  country  and  made  his  way  to  Machias.  After 
conferring  with  the  little  band  of  heroes  there,  he  sought  out  the 
leaders  of  the  patriot  cause  farther  down  the  coast,  especially  in 
Boston,  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  called  their  attention  to 
conditions  on  the  border  of  Nova  Scotia,  urging  especially  the 
importance  of  securing  early  friendly  relations  with  the  Indians 
in  that  region,  and  of  maintaining  such  relations.  He  also  con- 
ferred with  members  of  the  Continental  Congress  and  visited  Gen- 
eral Washington  at  his  headquarters.  His  appeals  received  sym- 
pathetic consideration.  His  character  and  ability,  as  well  as  his 
knowledge  of  conditions  in  Nova  Scotia  and  along  the  boundary, 
together  with  his  acquaintance  with  the  Indians  on  both  sides  of 
the  line,  won  for  him  a most  cordial  reception.  As  a result  of  his 

^ The  Baxter  MSS. , Volumes  XIV-XX,  contain  many  letters,  documents 
and  reports  referring  to  affairs  in  the  Penobscot  country  at  this  time. 

*His  father  was  a British  officer,  who  had  received  a large  grant  of  land  in 
the  territory  once  occupied  by  the  banished  French  Acadians. 


24 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


appeal  military  affairs  along  the  eastern  boundary  were  placed  in 
charge  of  the  Massachusetts  authorities,  by  whom,  on  September 
17,  1777,  John  Allan  was  appointed  colonel  of  the  troops  ordered 
to  be  raised  and  stationed  at  Machias.  He  was  also  given  the 
command  of  the  eastern  Indians  already  in  the  service  of  Massa- 
chusetts, or  who  soon  would  be  in  that  service.  How  faithfully 
and  self-sacrificingly,  until  the  close  of  the  war.  Colonel  Allan 
discharged  the  duties  thus  laid  upon  him  is  recorded  with  great 
fullness  in  the  Revolutionary  archives  of  Massachusetts.^ 

In  the  last  years  of  the  war  Colonel  Allan  was  especially  inter- 
ested in  matters  pertaining  to  the  boundary.  In  a letter  to  the 
president  of  the  Massachusetts  Council,  April  16,  1779,  he  stated, 
from  what  he  could  learn,  that  the  British  government  expected 
to  be  compelled  to  declare  the  independence  of  the  thirteen  states, 
but  was  determined  “to  keep  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  extend- 
ing its  line  of  territory  to  the  Kennebec  River.”  In  the  following 
November,  also  writing  to  the  president  of  the  council,  he 
announced  his  purpose,  with  the  approval  of  the  Massachusetts 
authorities,  to  move  “to  the  River  St.  Croix  or  Maggaguadawaya 
[Magaguadavic] , the  boundary  between  Acadia  and  Province  of 
Maine,  settled  formerly  between  the  French  and  British  Courts.”  * 
Plainly,  the  writer  had  in  view  not  two  rivers,  the  St.  Croix  and  the 
Magaguadavic,  but  one  river,  known  by  some  as  the  St.  Croix  and 
by  some  as  the  Magaguadavic.  This  is  an  early  mention  of  the 
Magaguadavic  as  the  St.  Croix  of  the  boundary.  Evidently 
Colonel  Allan  had  known  the  river  by  its  Indian  name;  but  in 
boundary  discussions  on  the  American  side  of  the  line  the  desig- 
nation St.  Croix,  of  Mitchell’s  map  of  1755,  and  of  the  later  sur- 
vey of  1764,  was  taking  the  place  of  the  Indian  name.  This  fact 
again  came  into  view  in  a letter  from  Colonel  Allan  to  the  gov- 
ernor of  Massachusetts,  dated  March  8,  1782,®  in  which  the  writer 

^In  the  Baxter  MSS.,  Volumes  XIV-XX,  such  reports  and  letters  by 
Colonel  Allan  will  be  found. 

2lb.,  XVI,  364;  XVIII,  62. 

®The  preliminary  treaty  of  peace  was  signed  November  30,  1782. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


25 


proposed,  if  not  otherwise  ordered,  “moving  immediately  near  to 
the  River  St.  Croix,  the  boundary  between  the  Province  of  Maine 
and  Acadia,  where  the  Indians  have  agreed  to  join  us,  by  which  I 
shall  be  more  able,  with  less  expense,  to  negotiate  the  business 
ordered  by  Congress.”  ^ 

Already,  accordingly.  Colonel  Allan  had  been  in  communica- 
tion with  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  concerning  the  boundary, 
and  was  emphasizing  the  advantages  the  victorious  colonists  would 
secure  by  making  the  Magaguadavic  the  new  nation’s  eastern 
boundary.  Practically  the  war  was  now  ended.  Cornwallis  sur- 
rendered his  army  at  Yorktown  October  18,  1781,  more  than  four 
months  before  Colonel  Allan’s  letter  was  written.  The  tidings  of 
the  surrender  reached  England,  by  way  of  France,  November  25th. 
“it  is  all  over,”  exclaimed  Ford  North,  and  in  his  agitation  he 
repeated  the  words  again  and  again.  It  was  all  over;  but  George 
III  was  as  stubborn  as  ever.  “No  difficulties,”  he  said,  “can  get 
me  to  consent  to  the  getting  of  peace  at  the  expense  of  a separa- 
tion from  America.”  With  the  downfall  of  Lord  North’s  min- 
istry in  March,  however,  the  king  was  compelled  to  yield,  and 
peace  negotiations,  in  the  face  of  many  hindrances,  were  at  length 
commenced. 

The  representatives  of  the  United  States  in  these  negotiations 
were  John  Adams,  Benjamin  Franklin,  John  Jay  and  Henry 
Laurens.  The  meetings  of  the  negotiators  were  held  in  Paris. 
At  the  outset,  on  the  part  of  the  Americans,  the  proceedings  were 
opened  by  Franklin  only,  Laurens  being  with  Adams  at  the 
Hague  (where  the  latter,  as  minister,  was  engaged  in  negotiating 
a Dutch  loan),  both  evidently  expecting  that  England  would  not 
be  in  any  haste  in  yielding  independence  to  the  victors.  Jay,  who 
in  the  treaty  was  mentioned  as  ‘ ‘late  president  of  Congress  and 
chief  justice  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  minister  plenipoten- 
tiary from  the  United  States  at  the  court  of  Madrid,”  was  still  in 
Spain.  Accordingly  Franklin,  on  account  of  probable  changes 
in  the  British  cabinet,  rightly  deemed  it  desirable  that  no  time 


^Baxter  MSS.,  XIX,  438. 


26 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


should  be  lost  in  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  treaty  mat- 
ters; and  he  opened  negotiations  with  Richard  Oswald,  one  of  the 
British  secretaries  of  state,  who  had  been  sent  to  Paris  for  that 
purpose.  In  his  first  interview  with  Mr.  Oswald,  Franklin  sug- 
gested that  Canada  should  be  ceded  to  the  United  States,  adding 
that  such  action  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  would  assure  “a  dur- 
able peace  and  a sweet  reconciliation.”  Of  course  the  suggestion 
was  not  taken  seriously.  Mr.  Oswald,  however,  was  ready  to 
grant  complete  independence  to  the  thirteen  colonies,  with  the 
Penobscot  River  as  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries,  and 
with  provision  for  the  security  of  the  Royalists  and  of  British 
debts.  Without  waiting  for  the  appearance  of  his  colleagues, 
Franklin  proceeded  to  draft  such  articles  of  peace  as  he  thought 
would  be  acceptable  to  his  countrymen.  These  he  submitted  to 
Mr.  Oswald  on  July  10,  1782,  and  with  them  the  latter  returned 
to  London.  Franklin’s  associates  on  their  arrival,  however, 
insisted  upon  a new  draft,  and  such  a draft,  though  on  lines  simi- 
lar to  that  made  by  Franklin,  was  prepared  by  Jay.  Adams,  who 
had  brought  with  him  important  papers  furnished  by  the  Massa- 
chusetts Council,  said  he  was  willing  to  yield  his  convictions  with 
reference  to  the  Loyalists  and  the  British  debts,  but  as  to  boundary 
matters  he  had  taken  pains  to  inform  himself,  and  he  was  deter- 
mined not  to  yield  the  opinions  he  had  formed,  which  were  based, 
as  he  believed,  on  long  established  rights.  In  his  diary,  Mr. 
Adams  gives  us  interesting  glimpses  of  these  matters,  while  the 
treaty  was  under  consideration.  In  an  entry  dated  November  10, 
1782,  he  makes  mention  of  a conversation  he  had  one  day  with 
Count  Vergennes,  the  French  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  who 
asked  him  concerning  the  progress  of  the  negotiations.  “l  told 
him,”  Mr.  Adams  records,  “we  divided  upon  two  points,  the 
Tories  and  the  Penobscot;  as  it  was  impossible  to  believe  that  my 
Lord  Shelburne,  or  the  nation,  cared  much  about  such  points. 
The  count  remarked  that  the  English  wanted  the  country  there 
for  masts.  I told  him  that  I thought  there  were  but  few  masts 
there;  but  that  I fancied  it  was  not  masts,  but  Tories  that  again 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


27 


made  the  difiSculty.  Some  of  them  claimed  lands  in  that  terri- 
tory, and  others  hoped  for  grants  there.  I took  out  of  my  pocket 
and  showed  him  the  record  of  Governor  Pownall’s  solemn  act  of 
bringing  a leaden  plate  with  this  inscription;  ‘May  23,  1759. 
Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  Penobscot,  Dominions  of  Great 
Britain.  Possession  confirmed  by  Thomas  Pownall,  Governor.’ 
This  was  planted  on  the  east  side  of  the  River  Penobscot,  three 
miles  above  marine  navigation.  I showed  him,  also,  all  the  other 
records, — the  laying  out  of  Mount  Desert,  Machias,  and  all  the 
other  towns  to  the  east  of  the  River  Penobscot,  and  told  him  that 
the  grant  of  Nova  Scotia  by  James  I to  Sir  William  Alexander, 
bounded  it  on  the  River  St.  Croix.”  ^ This  is  another  early  men- 
tion of  the  St.  Croix  River  in  connection  with  the  treaty  negotia- 
tions, and  is  what  might  have  been  expected  from  one  who  was 
more  familiar  with  matters  concerning  the  boundary  than  any 
other  of  the  American  negotiators.  Eight  days  later,  November 
18th,  Mr.  Adams  made  this  entry  in  his  diary:  “Returned  Mr. 
Oswald’s  visit.  We  went  over  the  old  ground  concerning  the 
Tories.  He  began  to  use  arguments  with  me  to  relax.  I told 
him  he  must  not  think  of  that,  but  must  lend  all  his  thoughts  to 
convince  and  persuade  his  court  to  give  it  up;  that  if  the  terms 
now  before  the  court  were  not  accepted,  the  whole  negotiations 
would  be  broken  off.”  ^ 

In  Franklin’s  preliminary  conversations  with  Oswald  and  in 
these  notes,  hastily  penned  by  Mr.  Adams,  we  get  only  a glimpse 
of  boundary  matters.  It  is  known,  however,  that  before  the 
arrival  of  Mr.  Adams,  Franklin  and  Jay  were  willing  that  the  set- 
tlement of  the  northeastern  boundary  should  be  left  to  commis- 
sioners to  be  appointed  after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  This 
was  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  given  by  Congress  to  the 
American  negotiators.  As  late  as  October,  1782,  Lord  Shelburne 
in  the  interest  of  the  Loyalists,  returned  to  conversations  concern- 
ing the  boundary,  and  proposed  that  either  the  Penobscot,  or  the 

Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VI,  335,  336. 

^Ib.,  Second  Series,  I,  396,  397. 


28 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Kennebec,  or  the  Saco,  should  be  made  the  boundary,  still  having 
in  view  the  New  Ireland,  already  mentioned,  as  a permanent  refuge 
for  the  expatriated  Loyalists.  Evidently  considerable  irritation 
was  manifested  by  the  American  negotiators  at  this  insistence  on 
the  part  of  the  British  secretary,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
occasion  of  the  entries  made  by  Mr.  Adams  in  his  diary.  He 
knew  how  strong  the  feeling  was  in  his  own  state,  especially  in 
the  eastern  parts,  with  reference  to  the  boundary;  and  he  made  a 
vigorous  use  of  the  maps  and  documents  that  had  been  placed  in 
his  hands,  not  yielding  to  the  consideration  of  any  other  boundary 
than  that  of  the  St.  Croix  River. 

At  length  all  differences  were  harmonized,  and  November  20, 
1782,  the  plenipotentiaries  of  both  countries  signed  articles  of 
peace  known  as  the  preliminary  treaty.  These  provisional  arti- 
cles, however,  laid  only  the  foundations  of  peace.  By  a declara- 
tion in  the  preamble,  the  treaty  was  not  to  be  concluded  “until 
terms  of  peace  should  be  agreed  upon  between  Great  Britain  and 
France,  and  his  Britannic  Majesty  should  be  ready  to  conclude 
such  treaty  accordingly.”  These  preliminaries  having  at  length 
been  effected,  the  definitive  treaty  was  signed  September  3,  1783.^ 

The  negotiators  of  the  treaty  were  not  unmindful  of  the  fact 
that  in  such  instruments  boundary  descriptions  afford  opportuni- 
ties for  international  disagreements;  and  in  order  to  provide  if 
possible  against  anything  of  the  kind  in  connection  with  their 
own  work,  they  introduced  the  article  of  the  treaty  which  refers 
to  the  boundary  in  these  words:  “And  that  all  disputes  which 
might  arise  in  future,  on  the  subject  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
United  States  may  be  prevented,  it  is  hereby  agreed  and  declared 
that  the  following  are  and  shall  be  the  boundaries,  viz.”  The 
northerly  line  of  the  northeastern  boundary  is  then  described  as 
follows:  “From  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  viz.,  that 
angle  which  is  formed  by  a line  drawn  due  north  from  the  source 

^And  still  events  moved  slowly.  Tidings  concerning  the  signing  of  the 
provisional  articles  of  peace  did  not  reach  the  United  States  until  late  in 
March,  1783. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


29 


of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  the  Highlands;  along  the  said  Highlands 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  river 
St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  to 
the  northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut  River.  ’ ’ The  easterly 
boundary  was  described  in  these  w'ords:  “East,  by  aline  to  be 
drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  from  its  mouth  in 
the  Bay  of  Fundy  to  its  source,  and  from  its  source  directly  north 
to  the  aforesaid  Highlands,  which  divide  the  rivers  that  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  from  those  which  fall  into  the  river  St. 
Lawrence.” 

Notwithstanding  the  mention  in  the  treaty  of  such  important 
topographical  features  as  “the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,” 
“the  river  St.  Croix,”  the  “source”  of  that  river  and  certain 
“Highlands”  at  the  aforesaid  angle,  their  insertion  did  not  pre- 
vent the  disputes  which,  from  the  history  of  treaties,  the  negotia- 
tors endeavored  to  avoid.  Indeed,  their  mention,  as  soon  as  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  were  made  known,  became  even  the  occa- 
sion of  controversy.  At  first  this  was  because  of  the  attitude  of 
the  Loyalists  at  Penobscot.  They  knew,  as  has  already  appeared, 
that  in  England  all  hope  of  making  the  Penobscot  River  the 
western  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia  had  been  abandoned;  but  they 
still  clung  to  their  homes,  irritating  the  people  of  the  Penobscot 
country  and  those  dwelling  farther  down  the  coast.  In  a letter 
to  Henry  Laurens,  one  of  his  associates,  Mr.  Adams  wrote:  “l 
wish  I could  see  more  serious  preparations  for  vacating  Penobscot. 
Our  people  will  not  feel  like  freemen  in  friendship  with  Great 
Britain  until  this  is  done.”^  Indeed  so  intense  were  the  expres- 
sions of  public  sentiment  on  account  of  this  delay  that  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts,  February  8,  1783,  appealed  to  Washing- 
ton, asking  the  co-operation  of  the  army  in  a proposed  attempt  to 
compel  the  retirement  of  the  British  garrison  at  Penobscot.  In 
his  reply  to  this  appeal,  Washington  referred  to  the  fact  that  all 
military  operations  were  now  subject  to  the  action  of  Congress, 
and  on  this  account  he  advised  a wise  exercise  of  patience  in  place 

^ Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Second  Series,  I,  397. 


30 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


of  the  proposed  aggressive  measures. ‘ The  loyalists  finally  saw 
that  added  delay  was  undesirable,  and  plans  were  adopted  for  a 
change  of  location. 

During  the  summer  of  1783,  Colonel  John  Allan  called  the 
attention  of  Governor  Hancock  to  the  beginnings  of  encroach- 
ments at  St.  Andrews  Point;  and  by  direction  of  the  governor  he 
returned  to  the  boundary  country  and  continued  his  investigations 
with  reference  to  these  Loyalist  movements.  In  a report,  dated 
Boston,  December  13,  1783,  he  gave  a detailed  account  of  such 
matters  as  came  under  his  observation  during  this  service.  He 
arrived  at  Passamaquoddy  September  23rd,  and  found  a number 
of  British  surveyors  exploring  the  rivers  emptying  into  Passama- 
quoddy Bay.  He  also  found  that  a number  of  British  settlers  had 
“taken  possession  of  St.  Andrew’s  Point,  twenty  miles  eastward 
of  St.  Croix.”  ^ Two  public  surveyors  were  there  for  the  purpose 
of  laying  out  the  township,  and  townships  in  the  vicinity.  In 
fact,  conditions  were  such  that  Colonel  Allan  asked  for  a confer- 
ence. At  this  conference  and  on  several  other  occasions,  he 
remonstrated  against  these  settlement  proceedings,  which  plainly 
had  reference  to  the  boundary;  and  when,  October  3rd,  two  large 
transports  and  several  smaller  vessels  arrived  at  St.  Andrews  from 
Penobscot  with  about  forty  families,  he  “cautioned  them  at  their 
peril  not  to  land  any  inhabitants.”  October  17th,  having  received 
an  invitation  from  the  Refugees  to  another  conference,  he  explained 
to  them  “their  precarious  situation,”  and  also  his  own  views  as 
to  “which  was  the  true  St.  Croix.”  The  Refugees  denied  any 
intention  of  encroachment  upon  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
insisting  that  they  were  there  by  order  of  the  British  government; 
and  inasmuch  as  the  season  was  so  far  advanced,  they  asked  not 
to  be  compelled  again  to  change  their  location  before  spring.  Still 

'^Baxter  MSS.,  XX,  188,  189. 

Boimdary  MSS.,  State  Library,  II,  344,  and  VII,  248.  The  direction 
“eastward”  in  this  citation  is  evidently  an  error  of  the  copyist  and  should  be 
westward,  as  Colonel  Allan  regarded  the  Magaguadavic  as  the  St.  Croix  of 
the  boundary,  and  St.  Andrews  is  west  of  the  Magaguadavic. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


31 


later  in  October,  several  more  families  landed  at  St.  Andrews,  and 
a number  of  houses  were  erected.  “Consequently,  all  I could 
do,”  Colonel  Allan  continued,  “was  to  warn  them  off,  waiting 
until  the  further  pleasure  of  the  government  was  known.”  Re- 
ferring to  various  conjectures  concerning  the  St.  Croix  River  of 
the  treaty,  the  report  continued:  “The  drafts  lately  from  Europe 
point  out  the  westerly  branch;  whether  this  is  by  authority  or  not 
I cannot  say;  but  I am  convinced  that  should  any  other  river  in 
the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  except  that  which  was  agreed  upon 
formerly  between  the  courts  of  France  and  Great  Britain,  a per- 
petual scene  of  confusion  and  trouble  must  be  the  consequence 
between  the  subjects  of  both  nations,  as  all  the  other  rivers  branch 
off  different  ways,  so  as  to  make  it  impossible  how  to  ascertain 
the  proper  course,  when  [while]  this  river  [the  Magaguadavic] , 
from  its  situation,  length  and  course  (without  branches)  leads  to 
the  mountains  [Highlands].  ‘This,’  the  old  Indians  assert,  ‘was 
the  reason  why  this  river  was  formerly  agreed  on  as  the  line 
between  Nova  Scotia  and  Massachusetts.’  ” ^ 

Before  closing  his  report.  Colonel  Allan  referred  to  a company 
of  wealthy  Refugees,  who  were  planning  to  engage  in  lumber  oper- 
ations on  a large  scale  at  Passamaquoddy.  Mention  was  made  of 
Robert  Pagan, ^ formerly  of  Falmouth,  Casco  Bay,  as  one  of  the 
more  prominent  among  them.  “Their  interest  with  the  govern- 
ment has  given  them  an  opportunity  of  procuring  a number  of 
inhabitants,  a great  part  British  soldiers.®  With  these  they  mean 
to  take  possession,  and  once  fixed  suppose  they  cannot  be  removed, 
whether  the  land  falls  eastward  or  westward  of  the  line.  So  that 
if  the  ancient  river  St.  Croix  is  intended  as  the  boundary,  it  will 

^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  II,  348;  VII,  251,  252. 

^He  was  one  of  three  brothers  who  emigrated  in  1769  from  Glasgow,  Scot- 
land, to  Falmouth,  now  Portland,  where  he  had  a large  store  on  the  corner 
of  India  and  Fore  streets.  He  married  a daughter  of  Jeremiah  Pote,  another 
Falmouth  royalist. 

® These  were  disbanded  soldiers  to  whom  grants  of  land  were  given  by  the 
government  of  Nova  Scotia. 


32 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


be  highly  necessary  some  steps  should  be  immediately  taken  to 
remove  those  settlers  from  St.  Andrews.”  ^ 

In  fact,  as  early  as  October  23,  1783,  so  many  reports  of  condi- 
tions on  the  border  had  reached  the  members  of  the  General  Court 
of  Massachusetts  that  the  governor  and  council  were  requested  to 
ascertain  the  true  state  of  proceedings  there,  in  order  that  if  the 
reports  were  true  they  might  be  communicated  to  Congress.  In 
accordance  with  this  action  a committee  was  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council  to  take  the  matter  into  consideration,  and 
Dr.  Aaron  Dexter,  who  had  recently  arrived  in  Boston  from  Nova 
Scotia,  and  Mr.  Charles  Morris,  the  king’s  surveyor,  appeared 
before  the  committee,  and  stated  that  on  their  side  of  the  boundary 
the  Schoodic  or  Great  St.  Croix  was  regarded  as  the  separating 
line  between  the  two  countries,  and  they  were  confident,  that  if 
there  was  any  cause  for  dispute  in  the  matter,  the  authorities  on 
their  side  of  the  line  were  desirous  that  it  should  be  settled  in  the 
most  amicable  manner  as  soon  as  possible.^ 

This  information,  together  with  Colonel  Allan’s  letter  of 
December  13,  1783,  and  another  from  the  same  source  dated  De- 
cember 25th,  addressed  to  the  president  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  were  laid  before  Congress,  and  on  January  29,  1784, 
that  body  adopted  a resolution  calling  upon  the  governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  make  inquiry  concerning  any  alleged  encroachments 
upon  United  States  territory,  and  recommending  that  in  case 
such  encroachments  had  been  made,  the  attention  of  the  governor 
of  Nova  Scotia  should  be  called  to  them,  “requesting  him  in  a 
friendly  manner,  and  as  a proof  of  that  disposition  for  peace  and 
harmony  which  should  subsist  between  neighboring  states,  to 
recall  from  off  the  said  territory  the  said  subjects  of  his  Britannic 
Majesty.”®  Penobscot,  the  last  portion  of  the  soil  of  the  United 
States  held  by  British  troops,  was  not  evacuated  until  January  15, 

'^Boundary  MSS.,  State  I/ibrary,  First  Series,  II,  344-350. 

Ub.,  First  Series,  II,  350-352. 

^ Manuscript  A merican  Reply,  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Maine  Historical  Society, 
196,  197. 


Champi.ain’s  Skktch  of  the  Island  of  St.  Ckoix  and  Buildings,  1604. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


33 


1784.^  The  number  of  Loyalists  who  removed  from  Penobscot  to 
St.  Andrews  on  Passamaquoddy  Bay  was  about  six  hundred.^ 

As  they  paid  no  heed  to  Colonel  Allan’s  warnings,  and  reports 
of  their  increased  activities  reached  Boston,  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  July  7th,  adopted  a resolve  for  the  appointment 
of  a committee  of  three  to  make  an  investigation  of  reported  Brit- 
ish encroachments  on  the  eastern  boundary.  The  governor  placed 
on  this  committee  Generals  Lincoln  and  Knox  and  Mr.  George 
Partridge.  On  account  of  illness,  Mr.  Partridge  was  unable  to 
serve,  and  Colonel  John  Allan  was  added  to  the  committee.^  In 
the  latter  part  of  August,  1784,  these  gentlemen  made  their  way 
to  St.  Andrews,  where  they  found  quite  a large  number  of  British 
subjects,  who  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee  were  clearly  within 
the  limits  of  Massachusetts.  The  result  of  their  investigations, 
as  presented  in  a report  dated  Boston,  October  19th,  was  as  follows; 
“There  are  three  very  considerable  rivers,  which  empty  them- 
selves into  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  which  is  from  five  to  seven 
leagues  wide.  The  eastern  river  falls  into  the  Bay  about  a league 

from  the  head  of  it,  and  perpendicular  to  the  eastern 

side.  The  middle  river  falls  into  the  Bay  far  on  the  westerly  side 
of  the  head  of  it,  and  in  a direction  parallel  therewith.  The  west- 
ern river  falls  into  the  Bay  about  six  leagues  from  the  head  of  it, 
on  the  westerly  side  and  nearly  perpendicular  to  it,  all  of  which 
in  late  British  maps  are  called  St.  Croix.  The  first  is  by  the 
Indians  called  Mackadavia  [Magaguadavic],  the  second  Schudac 
[Schoodic],  and  the  third  Cobbescook  [Cobscook].  From  every 
information  the  subscribers  could  obtain  on  an  inquiry  of  the 
Indians  and  others,  the  eastern  river  was  the  original  St.  Croix. 
This  is  about  three  leagues  east  of  St.  Andrews,  where  the  British 
inhabitants  have  made  a settlement.” 

Further,  they  had  written  to  Mr.  Jay,  requesting  him  to  give 

^ Collections  of  the  New  Brunswick  Historical  Society,  No.  9,  529. 

^ Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Second  Series,  II,  400. 

^Baxter  MSS.,  XX,  396. 


3 


34 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


them  information  whether  the  commissioners  for  negotiating  the 
peace  confined  themselves  in  tracing  the  boundaries  of  the  United 
States  to  any  particular  map.  Since  their  return,  they  had  received 
his  answer,  stating  that  Mitchell’s  map  was  the  only  one  that  the 
commissioners  used,  and  on  that  they  traced  the  boundaries  agreed 
to,  “a  fact,”  they  added,  “which  must  facilitate  an  equitable 
decision  of  the  matter.  ’ ’ 

Before  concluding  their  report,  the  subscribers  referred  to  the 
rapid  improvements  made  by  the  Refugees  at  St.  Andrews,  regard- 
ing these  as  an  embarrassment  in  any  settlement  of  the  boundary 
line  agreeable  to  the  treaty  of  peace.  They  accordingly  suggested 
the  propriety  of  quieting  in  their  possessions  such  British  sub- 
jects as  were  desirous  of  becoming  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States.^ 

This  report,  on  its  presentation  to  the  General  Court  of  Massa- 
chusetts, October  20,  1784,  was  accepted  as  establishing  the  claim 
of  the  United  States  with  reference  to  the  eastern  boundary,  the 
character  of  the  members  of  the  committee  giving  to  the  report 
great  weight.  Generals  Lincoln  and  Knox  had  achieved  distinc- 
tion in  the  Continental  Army  during  the  Revolutionary  War, 
while  no  one  on  this  side  of  the  border  was  so  familiar  with  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  boundary  at  the  disputed  point  as  Colonel 
John  Allan.  Accordingly,  on  November  12th,  Governor  Hancock 
wrote  to  Governor  Parr  of  Nova  Scotia,  making  mention  of  the 
boundary  investigations  instituted  by  the  General  Court,  and  in- 
closing a resolution  and  proclamation  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  with  reference  to  boundary  encroachments.  “The 
government  of  this  State,”  he  said,  “is  no  less  desirous  than  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled  of  cultivating  that  peace  and 
harmony  which  I hope  will  ever  subsist  between  the  citizens  of 
the  States  and  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty.”  The  letter  closed 
with  the  request  that  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia  would  recall  to 


^ Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  II,  276-279. 


Smtion  or  MiTcnxu.'fi  Ma 


17SS. 


1 1 !■>  1 f I IIMIW  1 Hf»p!»WI 

O ')  . 

>iS«r  JSS' 


lit 


■«.  “■  "iT  - - - ■»!(»«--  -«!*««  . 


-jn  • ■ 


- i'-S-l 


f TOAHTXfi: 


/.t‘\AV,r,Cia  \nTi.aX>\  aAK  tV  'AWt  'io.  J 

i 


XI 


i ^ /.a  li  a a T ff  05?:‘ 


(■  ■ 

4 

,¥■ 


%'i. 


Til 


i rptlaiiM 


i: 

>? 


.vssKc^.':.  ^ ^-.’s.-vs  ■ ■ -■^  a./'.'  I ' ^ ^ '■-■•V.  ■ 'll!''  '“~rr»  ■ 

V. . . ■■  >i  ■..  ••  ]l. 


')  . 


'■ 


} f :.'  ■"  r.  <lfci  f 


••.v’.A  0 'IVvS  ■f.tsi'ji  ■Ji'iV:  -..y'.V^'' 

V Sisywi«<^;  mVV  • ' ■ '.  'v  i^’  i ■'  ■'.A.i^  'AT-i.i  ; ' 


:«it,;i**’t^i . v*>vn-  ' 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


35 


British  territory  the  Loyalists  who  had  planted  themselves  within 
the  limits  of  Massachusetts.^ 

At  this  time  the  territory  of  Nova  Scotia  west  of  the  St.  John 
River  had  been  erected  into  a separate  province  since  known  as 
New  Brunswick;  and  Governor  Parr,  in  a letter  dated  December 
7,  1784,  informed  Governor  Hancock  that  he  had  forwarded  his 
letter  to  the  governor  of  New  Brunswick,  and  also  to  Lord  Sydney, 
one  of  his  Majesty’s  principal  secretaries  of  state. 

Meanwhile  General  Rufus  Putnam  had  been  sent  into  the 
boundary  country  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  added  information 
in  reference  to  the  rivers,  and  also  to  make  such  surveys  of  the 
land  as  would  be  helpful  in  considering  differences  that  had  arisen. 
In  a letter  addressed  to  a committee  of  the  General  Court  Decem- 
ber 27,  1784,  General  Putnam  presented  the  results  of  his  investi- 
gations, furnishing  valuable  supplementary  information.^ 

The  governor  of  New  Brunswick  naturally  awaited  instructions 
from  the  king’s  ministers  before  answering  Governor  Hancock’s 
communication  addressed  to  Governor  Parr;  and  it  was  not  until 
June  21,  1785,  that  Governor  Carleton  submitted  the  following 
statement:  “I  have  it  in  charge  to  inform  your  excellency  that 
the  Great  St.  Croix,  called  Schoodick  by  the  Indians,  was  not 
only  considered  by  the  court  of  Great  Britain  the  river  intended 
and  agreed  upon  by  the  treaty  to  form  a part  of  that  boundary, 
but  a numerous  body  of  the  loyal  Refugees,  immediately  after  the 
peace,  built  the  town  of  St.  Andrews  on  the  eastern  bank  thereof. 
And  in  fact,  it  is  the  only  river  on  that  side  of  the  province,  of 
either  such  magnitude  or  extent,  as  could  have  led  to  the  idea  of 
proposing  it  as  a limit  between  two  large  and  spacious  countries.”  ® 

In  these  words  we  have  an  official  statement  of  the  British  case 
thus  early  formulated  with  reference  to  the  boundary  controversy. 
While  Governor  Carleton  entertained  no  doubt  of  Governor  Han- 

American  State  Papers,  I,  92. 

^A  reproduction  copy  of  General  Putnam’s  manuscript  Journal,  with  maps, 
is  in  the  possession  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 

^American  State  Papers,  I,  95. 


36 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


cock’s  concurrence  with  him  in  observing  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  he  expressed  the  hope,  in  case  any  further  ques- 
tions should  arise  between  the  two  governments,  that  they  would 
be  considered  “with  a temper  and  attention  essential  to  the  pres- 
ervation of  national  peace  and  harmony.”  By  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Court  of  Massachusetts,  July  1,  1785,  Governor  Carleton’s 
letter  was  transmitted  to  the  Massachusetts  delegates  in  Congress, 
to  be  communicated  by  them  to  the  Congress  itself. 

Meanwhile  New  Brunswick  officials  continued  to  assert  authority 
over  the  islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  James  Avery,  a Massa- 
chusetts official  having  duties  that  brought  him  into  the  boundary 
territory,  addressed  a letter  to  Governor  Bowdoin,  August  23, 
1785,  describing  conditions  as  they  came  under  his  observation. 
“Moose  Island,”  he  said,  “is  large  and  well  situated  for  trade, 
and  has  a number  of  worthy  inhabitants  settled  on  it.  A few  days 
ago  Mr.  Wier^  [Wyer],  high  sheriff  of  Charlotte  County,  posted 
up  advertisements  on  the  island,  directing  the  inhabitants  to  attend 
the  courts  at  St.  Andrews  as  jurymen.  This  alarmed  the  inhabit- 
ants as  they  were  threatened,  in  case  of  refusal,  to  be  deprived  of 
their  estates.  Some  weak  and  designing  minds  were  for  comply- 
ing; others  determined  not  [to  attend]  at  all  events.  Application 
was  made  to  me  by  Colonel  Allan,  the  naval  officer.  Colonel  Crane, 
Major  Trescott,  with  a number  of  other  principal  gentlemen,  to  do 
something  to  counteract  the  proceedings  of  Mr.  Wier,  as  it  would 
be  very  detrimental  to  the  claims  of  our  government  in  settling 
the  boundary  in  regard  to  the  islands  for  the  inhabitants  to  obey 
and  acknowledge  the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain.  Therefore,  I 
went  on  to  the  island,  and  warned  them  (as  a justice  of  the  peace) 
that  as  they  were  subjects  of  this  Commonwealth,  not  to  obey  the 

orders  of  any  other  power  whatever Mr.  Wier  made 

use  of  many  arguments  to  show  the  propriety  of  their  claims  to 
all  the  islands;  among  others  he  said,  before  the  war  the  inhabit- 
ants on  all  of  them,  in  any  of  their  disputes,  applied  to  magis- 

^ He  was  a son-in-law  of  Jeremiah  Pote,  and  a former  resident  of  Falmouth, 
now  Portland,  Maine. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


37 


trates  belonging  to  Nova  Scotia  for  redress,  and  acknowledged 
themselves  subjects  of  that  province;  and  the  [province  of]  Massa- 
chusetts not  asserting  any  right  over  them  was  tacitly  acknowl- 
edging it  to  be  so.”  ^ 

September  9,  1785,  Governor  Bowdoin  laid  this  communication 
before  the  council,  and  requested  its  advice  with  reference  to  it; 
whereupon  the  governor  was  directed  to  inform  Mr.  Avery  that  his 
vigilant  attention  to  these  matters  was  highly  approved,  and  he  was 
directed  to  inform  the  inhabitants  of  Moose,  Dudley  and  Fred- 
erick islands,  “all  lying  to  the  westward  of  Schoodic  river,”  that 
the  said  islands  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  commonwealth, 
and  that  the  inhabitants  were  expected  to  conduct  themselves 
in  every  respect  as  became  true  and  faithful  subjects."  Gov- 
ernor Bowdoin  also  informed  Governor  Carleton  of  this  encroach- 
ment upon  the  territorial  rights  of  Massachusetts.  In  his  reply, 
October  18,  1785,  Governor  Carleton,  while  referring  to  the  action 
of  the  sheriff  of  Charlotte  County  as  without  any  special  advice  or 
direction  of  the  judicial  officers  of  the  province,  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  sheriff,  in  considering  Moose  Island  as  within 
the  county  of  Charlotte,  was  warranted  in  his  action  not  only  by 
the  limits  of  his  bailiwick,  but  by  the  express  terms  of  the  treaty 
of  Paris,  which  reserved  to  Great  Britain  all  “such  islands  as  now 
are  or  heretofore  have  been  within  the  limits  of  the  province  of 
Nova  Scotia.”® 

Massachusetts  lost  no  time  in  communicating  this  information 
to  the  national  government,  and  September  22,  1785,  Mr.  Jay, 
the  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States,  suggested  that  inas- 
much as  one  encroachment  always  paves  the  way  for  another, 
“the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  be  advised  by  Congress  to 
proceed  without  noise  or  delay,  to  garrison  such  places  in  their 
actual  possession  as  may  be  most  exposed.  Your  secretary  pro- 

American  Reply , Treaty  of  Ghent,  Maine  Historical  Society, 

222,  223,  225. 

2lb.,  227. 

^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  II,  353. 


38 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


poses  by  these  garrisons  to  support  the  habitants  in  their  alle- 
giance, and  to  overawe  New  Brunswick  peace  officers,  whom  impu- 
nity might  tempt  to  be  insolent  and  troublesome.”^  Congress, 
however,  made  no  attempt  to  protect  exposed  settlers  in  accord- 
ance with  this  suggestion,  but  resolved,  October  13th,  to  transmit 
to  the  American  minister  in  London  the  information  it  had 
received,  with  instructions  to  arrange  for  a settlement  of  these 
boundary  differences  by  negotiations,  or  by  commissioners  mutually 
appointed  for  such  a peaceful  settlement.^ 

February  10,  1786,  Governor  Bowdoin,  in  a messsage  to  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  informed  its  members  of  the  action 
of  the  high  sheriff  of  Charlotte  County,  New  Brunswick,  in  seiz- 
ing one  of  the  inhabitants  of  Moose  Island  and  telling  him  he 
must  obtain  bail  or  go  to  jail.  As  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
the  man  denied  the  sheriff’s  authority;  and  when  the  sheriff  called 
on  some  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  the  island  to  assist  him  in 
carrying  off  his  prisoner  and  they  refused,  he  proceeded  to  Campo 
Bello  for  aid  from  one  of  the  British  ships.  Also,  July  6,  1786, 
Governor  Bowdoin  received  information  of  the  seizure  of  two 
American  vessels  as  they  lay  at  anchor  near  the  western  shore  of 
the  west  passage  into  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  In  a message  to  the 
General  Court,  July  7,  1786,  referring  to  this  “most  daring  insult 
upon  the  dignity  of  this  Commonwealth  and  the  United  States,” 
Governor  Bowdoin  again  asserted  the  right  of  Massachusetts  to 
the  islands  in  question— Moose,  Dudley  and  Frederick— in  oppo- 
sition to  what  he  regarded  as  “a  disposition  to  exclude  us  from 
the  navigation  of  that  Bay,”  and  “a  violation  of  the  definitive 
treaty  of  peace.”  Whereupon  the  governor  was  authorized,  with 
the  advice  of  the  council,  to  take  such  further  measures  for  sup- 
porting the  territorial  claims  of  the  commonwealth  as  he  should 
deem  necessary. “ 

^Ganong,  Transactio7is  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Ca^iada,  1901-1902,  283. 

“^American  State  Papers,  I,  96,  97. 

^Manuscript  Atnerican  Reply,  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Maine  Historical  Society, 
241-246. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


39 


These  clashings  made  it  increasingly  desirable  that  the  boundary 
line  should  be  definitely  determined  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
beginning  of  a new  effort  in  this  direction  was  made  February  1, 
1790,  when  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  instructed  Gov- 
ernor Hancock  to  write  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  and 
call  his  attention  to  continued  British  encroachments  on  the  east- 
ern boundary  of  the  commonwealth.  He  was  also  requested  to 
forward  to  the  president  such  documents  as  might  be  necessary  to 
substantiate  the  alleged  facts. ^ The  governor  complied,  express- 
ing the  wish  that  Congress  would  direct  the  way  in  which  a proper 
and  speedy  inquiry  might  be  made.  Such  an  inquiry,  he  thought, 
would  have  a tendency  to  prevent  added  disagreeable  contentions. 
The  letter  and  documents  were  received  by  the  president  on  Feb- 
ruary 17th,  and  on  the  following  day  he  transmitted  the  letter  and 
action  of  the  General  Court  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
while  the  documents  were  deposited  with  the  secretary  of  state  for 
use  as  needed.  In  a report  on  March  9th  the  Senate  committee, 
to  which  these  communications  were  referred,  recommended  that 
a representation  of  the  case  should  be  made  to  the  court  of  Great 
Britain.  If  the  matter  could  not  be  amicably  adjusted,  a proposi- 
tion should  be  made  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  con- 
sider and  render  a decision  with  reference  to  the  differences  that 
had  arisen.  Especially  it  was  recommended  that  measures  should 
be  adopted  for  taking  the  testimony  of  John  Mitchell  and  Nathan 
Jones,  who  were  appointed  by  Governor  Bernard,  in  1764,  to 
“ascertain  the  river  St.  Croix.”  ^ 

But  notwithstanding  the  urgency  of  aggrieved  parties  in  the 
boundary  territory,  supported  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  the 
national  government,  for  several  years,  seemed  to  give  little  heed 
to  boundary  matters,  apparently  having  under  its  consideration 
affairs  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  which  were  regarded  as  of 
much  greater  importance.  With  each  succeeding  year,  however, 
other  sources  of  irritation  between  the  two  countries  were  opera- 

American  State  Papers,  I,  99. 

Hb.,  1,100. 


40 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


tive,  and  in  1794  the  general  feeling  in  all  parts  of  the  country 
was  such  that  President  Washington  appointed  John  Jay  an  envoy 
extraordinary  to  the  court  of  Great  Britain  for  the  purpose  of  set- 
tling, by  a treaty,  all  existing  differences  that  had  arisen  between 
the  two  countries.  Mr.  Jay,  who  was  one  of  the  negotiators  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  and  therefore  was  especially  well  qualified  for 
this  service,  arrived  in  London  June  18,  1794.  On  the  20th  he  had 
his  first  interview  with  Lord  Grenville,  and  soon  after  he  entered 
upon  the  duties  entrusted  to  him. 

August  8th,  Mr.  Jay  submitted  to  Lord  Grenville  some  outlines 
for  a convention  and  treaty  of  commerce.  One  of  the  items  in 
this  outline  was  recorded  in  these  words:  “The  boundaries  of  the 
United  States,  as  delineated  in  the  said  treaty  of  peace,  and  every 
article  in  the  said  treaty  contained,  are  hereby  recognized,  ratified 
and  forever  confirmed;  but  inasmuch  as  the  parties  differ  as  to 
which  is  the  river  intended  by  the  treaty,  and  therein  called  the 
river  St.  Croix,  it  is  agreed  that  the  said  question  shall  be  referred 
to  the  final  decision  of Commissioners,”  etc.’^ 

August  30th,  Lord  Grenville  laid  before  Mr.  Jay  two  drafts  or 
treaties,  one  for  “regulating”  all  points  in  dispute  between  the 
two  countries,  and  the  other  for  the  establishment  of  commercial 
rules.  In  the  draft  for  the  settlement  of  all  boundary  differences 
occurred  the  following:  “Whereas  doubts  have  arisen  what  river 
was  truly  intended  under  the  name  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  men- 
tioned in  the  said  treaty,  and  forming  a part  of  the  boundary 
therein  described,  that  question  shall  be  referred  to  the  final 
decision  of  commissioners  in  London.”  ^ In  his  reference  to  these 
drafts,  Mr.  Jay  objected  to  a meeting  of  the  commissioners  in 
London,  “is  it  not  probable,”  he  asked,  “that  actual  views  and 
surveys,  and  the  examination  of  witnesses  on  the  spot  will  be 
necessary  ?’ 

London,  as  the  meeting  place  of  the  commissioners,  seems  not 

^Ajnerican  State  Papers^  I,  486. 

Mb.,  I,  488. 

Mb.,  I,  492. 


THE  TREATY  OF  PARIS. 


41 


to  have  been  mentioned  again,  and  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  was 
named  in  the  treaty.  November  5th,  Mr.  Jay  informed  Mr. 
Randolph,  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States,  that  it  was 
almost  certain  that  the  draft  of  the  treaty  would  soon  be  perfected. 
On  the  16th  he  could  write:  “The  long  expected  treaty  accom- 
panies this  letter;  a probability  of  soon  concluding  it  has  caused 
the  packet  to  be  detained  for  more  than  a week.  The  difficulties 
which  retarded  its  accomplishment  frequently  had  the  appearance 
of  being  insurmountable;  they  have  at  last  yielded  to  modifica- 
tions of  the  articles  in  which  they  existed,  and  to  that  mutual 
disposition  to  agreement  which  reconciled  Uord  Grenville  and 
myself  to  an  unusual  degree  of  trouble  and  application.” 

It  was  not  until  March  7th,  1795,  however,  that  the  treaty  was 
delivered  to  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States.  As  might 
have  been  expected,  in  this  country  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain, 
there  was  criticism  and  objection  when  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
were  made  known.  Washington  delayed  more  than  three  months 
before  transmitting  the  treaty  to  the  Senate;  and  it  was  not  until 
October  28,  1795,  after  protracted  debate  in  the  Senate,  that  rati- 
fications were  exchanged  by  the  two  countries,  the  announcement 
of  this  final  action  being  made  to  Congress  by  the  president  March 
1,  1796.^ 

'^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  President,  I,  192. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  St.  Croix  Commission. 


HE  fifth  article  of  Jay’s  treaty/ having  reference  to  “the 
river  truly  intended  under  the  name  of  the  River  St. 
Croix,”  required  the  appointment  of  three  commissioners, 
one  to  be  made  by  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  one  by  the 
president  of  the  United  States  and  one  by  the  two  thus  selected. 
March  5,  1796,  George  III  appointed  as  the  British  commissioner 
Thomas  Barclay,^  of  Annapolis,  Nova  Scotia,  a New  York  Loyal- 
ist, who  at  the  opening  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  not  finding 
himself  in  sympathy  with  the  colonists  in  their  efforts  for  inde- 
pendence, joined  the  British  army,  first  as  a volunteer,  in  1776, 
but  later  as  an  officer,  reaching  the  rank  of  colonel,  and  serving 
until  the  close  of  the  war.  Then,  with  other  New  York  Loyalists, 
he  made  his  way  to  Nova  Scotia,  where  he  was  made  a member 
of  the  Provincial  Assembly  and  became  its  speaker. 

As  the  American  commissioner.  President  Washington  first 
appointed  General  Henry  Knox.  He  declined  to  serve,  however, 
stating  among  other  reasons  that  he  was  interested  personally  in 
the  boundary  controversy.  Accordingly,  May  21,  1796,  the  pres- 
ident gave  the  appointment  to  David  Howell,*  professor  of  law  in 
Brown  University,  and  one  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the 
Rhode  Island  bar.  He  had  been  a member  of  the  Continental 
Congress  and  a strong  advocate  of  the  patriot  cause. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  St.  Croix  commission  was  to  be  held  in 
Halifax,  Nova  Scotia;  but  as  it  was  known  to  the  secretary  of 

1 It  was  designated  as  the  Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation. 

^He  was  a son  of  Henry  Barclay,  D.  D.,  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New 
York,  from  1746  to  1764,  and  was  born  in  New  York,  October  12,  1753. 

® There  is  a copy  of  his  commission  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical 
Society. 


j/ rf( r/l tn,Tj!n  ///  r 

ait^‘  i J^rtna-tf  (4!}arc4  ’J 

1% . \j,r,n  M ’' 

lr,n<n.jurn,r 

^ 

O^A-r  ^ 
anu-r<  CA^^, 

^ '- J A rf-  '' 

~thiL  AyA-a.  yiAti  r/L  ^ / 

.a^cdfd  kAA^cyi.^1^  A^i  0AAAI  ^AaJ 

ai^d  7tu^^'A  t^^TAs:  f 

\J\/eu^-',y>^^  * 

' ‘ / <'■  ' 


4t  ,?/: 

z' 


Vvi/yuA!AA 


FtKST  Pagr  of  Instructions  to  Thomas  Barclay  by  Georgr  III. 
BVoui  the  original  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


43 


State  in  May  that  Colonel  Barclay  was  in  New  York,  he  suggested 
that  it  would  be  well  for  him  to  have  a preliminary  conference 
with  Mr.  Howell,  and  such  a conference  was  held  in  Boston,  June 
27,  1796.  At  this  conference  there  were  conversations  with  ref- 
erence to  the  third  member  of  the  commission,  but  action  was 
deferred  until  the  meeting  of  the  commissioners  at  Halifax. 

With  other  members  of  his  party,  Mr.  Howell  sailed  from 
Boston,  August  19th,  for  Halifax,  where  he  met  Colonel  Barclay. 
At  the  first  meeting  of  the  commission,  held  August  30th,  the 
two  members  already  appointed  made  choice  of  Egbert  Benson, 
one  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  New  York,  as  the  third 
commissioner.  Concerning  Judge  Benson,  Colonel  Barclay  left 
the  following  record:  “l  found  it  impracticable  for  Mr.  Howell, 
the  American  commissioner,  and  myself  ever  to  agree  on  any 
other  person,  and  that  unless  I joined  in  the  appointment  of 
Judge  Benson  we  must  proceed  to  the  unpleasant  alternative  of 
balloting  for  the  third  commissioner.”  * The  commission  as  thus 
constituted,  therefore,  was  composed  of  two  Americans  and  one 
Nova  Scotian,  who  was  an  American  Loyalist.* 

In  order  to  hasten  the  surveys  and  other  matters  connected  with 
their  work,  the  two  commissioners,  finding  that  it  would  be  more 
convenient  for  all  parties  to  make  St.  Andrews  their  headquarters 
for  the  present,  proceeded  thither;  and  Judge  Benson  was  re- 
quested to  join  them  there  on  October  3d. 

At  a meeting  of  the  commission  at  St.  Andrews,  October  4, 

^Selections  from  the  Corresp07idence  of  Thomas  Barclay^  by  George  I,. 
Rives,  62,  63.  Mr.  Rives  was  a grandson  of  Colonel  Barclay,  and  through  the 
late  Judge  W.  L.  Putnam,  after  the  publication  of  this  volume  of  Correspond- 
ence, he  presented  his  grandfather’s  valuable  manuscript  boundary  material 
to  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 

*Hon.  Israel  Washburn,  in  an  elaborate  monograph  on  the  northeastern 
boundary  controversy,  read  before  the  Maine  Historical  Society  May  15,  1879 
(Collections  of  the  Mahie  Historical  Society,  First  Series,  VIII,  12),  states  that 
the  commission  consisted  of  ‘‘Thomas  Barclay,  Daniel  Howell  (Englishmen) 
and  Egbert  Benson  (American).”  This  error  with  reference  to  Mr.  Howell 
naturally  affected  unfavorably  Governor  Washburn’s  views  with  reference  to 
the  work  of  the  commission. 


44 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


1796,  Mr.  Benson  met  Colonel  Barclay  and  Mr.  Howell,  and  the 
three  commissioners  were  sworn  before  Robert  Pagan,  then  one 
of  the  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  for  Charlotte  County. 
At  this  meeting  Edward  Winslow,^  of  Fredericton,  New  Bruns- 
wick, was  made  secretary  of  the  commission.  Here,  also,  James 
Sullivan,^  the  agent  of  the  United  States  for  conducting  the 
American  case  before  the  commissioners,  and  Ward  Chipman,^ 
the  British  agent,  appeared,  presented  their  credentials,  and  the 
organization  of  the  commission  having  been  aecomplished,  the 
commissioners  entered  upon  their  work. 

Mr.  Sullivan  was  the  author  of  a History  of  the  District  of  Maine, 
then  recently  published;  and  Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of  state  for 
the  United  States,  in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Sullivan,  wrote: 
“Your  researches  as  the  historian  of  the  District  of  Maine,  your 
reputation  as  a lawyer  and  your  official  employment  as  the  attor- 
ney general  of  Massachusetts,  the  state  most  directly  interested  in 

1 He  was  a descendant  of  Edward  Winslow,  governor  of  the  Plymouth 
Colony  in  1633,  1636,  1644.  As  a royalist  he  joined  the  British  army  in  the 
Revolutionary  War,  serving  as  colonel. 

^He  was  born  in  Berwick,  Maine,  April  22,  1744.  Before  the  Revolu- 
tionary War  he  was  king’s  attorney  for  York  County.  In  that  war  he  was  an 
ardent  patriot  and  acted  a conspicuous  part.  He  was  a member  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress  in  1775;  in  1776  he  was  made  a judge  of  the  supreme  court; 
in  1779  and  1780  he  was  a member  of  the  convention  that  framed  the  consti- 
tution of  Massachusetts;  and  in  1783  he  was  elected  a member  of  Congress. 
From  1790  to  1807,  he  was  attorney  general  of  Massachusetts,  and  its  governor 
in  1807  and  1808.  He  died  December  10,  1808,  and  was  buried  in  the  Granary 
Burial  Ground  in  Boston. 

®A  native  of  Marblehead,  Massachusetts,  he  left  Boston  with  the  British 
troops  at  the  opening  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  served  in  the  British 
army  in  various  military  positions.  At  the  close  of  the  war  he  took  up  his 
residence  in  St.  John,  New  Brunswick.  He  held  important  civil  positions, 
among  them  that  of  chief  justice  and  president  of  the  province.  His  father, 
John  Chipman,  was  an  eminent  lawyer  in  Marblehead,  and  when  arguing  a 
case,  July  1,  1768,  in  the  court  house  in  Falmouth,  now  Portland,  he  was 
stricken  with  apoplexy  and  died.  He  was  buried  in  the  Eastern  Cemetery  in 
Portland,  and  a monument  was  erected  over  his  grave  by  members  of  the 
Falmouth  bar. 


James  Sceeivan, 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


45 


the  event,  have  designated  you  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States 
to  manage  their  claim  of  boundary  where  their  territory  joins  that 
of  his  Britannic  Majesty,  in  his  province  of  New  Brunswick,  for- 
merly a part  of  the  province  of  Nova  Scotia The  pend- 

ing decision  is  to  be  final.  Great  industry,  therefore,  will  be 
necessary  to  collect,  and  much  diligence  and  ability  will  be  re- 
quired to  arrange  and  enforce  the  evidence  in  support  of  the  claim 
of  the  United  States.  Besides  written  documents  it  is  possible 
that  living  witnesses,  if  carefully  sought  for,  may  yet  be  found 
whose  testimony  may  throw  much  light  on,  if  not  positively 
establish,  our  claim.  To  obtain  these,  if  they  exist,  as  well  as  all 
written  documents,  the  president  relies  on  your  diligent  research 
and  inquiry;  and  in  the  application  of  them  to  support  the  inter- 
ests of  the  United  States  he  assures  himself  of  the  utmost  exertion 
of  your  ability.”  ^ 

At  this  meeting  at  St.  Andrews,  the  two  agents  presented  writ- 
ten statements,  setting  forth  the  claims  of  their  respective  govern- 
ments with  reference  to  the  boundary.  Mr.  Sullivan’s  statement 
was  as  follows:  “That  a certain  river  called  by  the  Indians  the 
Magaguadavic  and  which  river  empties  its  waters  into  the  Bay  of 
Passamaquoddy  on  the  northeasterly  side  thereof,  is  the  River  St. 
Croix  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  concluded  between  the  United  States 
and  his  said  Majesty  in  the  year  1783,  and  that  the  same  river 
forms  a part  of  the  boundary  in  the  same  treaty  described.”  ^ The 
claim  of  the  British  agent  was  stated  at  greater  length,  but  was 
summarized  in  these  words:  “That  the  said  River  St.  Croix,  so 
originally  named  by  the  French  in  the  year  1604,  and  recognized 
in  the  said  letters  patent  [to  Sir  William  Alexander]  in  the  year 
1621,  and  uniformly  from  the  time  last  mentioned  referred  to  and 
known  as  the  boundary  of  the  said  province  of  Nova  Scotia  in  all 
authenticated  histories,  public  documents  and  acts  of  State,  both 
in  the  English  and  French  nations,  is  the  River  St.  Croix  truly 

^ Amory’s  Life  of  fames  Sullivan,  I,  307,  308. 

‘^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Uibrary,  First  Series,  I,  5. 


46 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


intended  by  the  said  treaty  of  peace.  It  was  specifically  men- 
tioned, however,  that  it  was  “the  western  branch  of  this  river, 
extending  itself  to  the  River  Penobscot,”  that  “has  always  been 
and  now  is  justly,  properly  and  truly  called  the  main  branch  of 

the  said  river  by  whatever  name  the  same  river may  at 

any  time  have  been  called,  whether  Passamaquoddy,  Scoudiac  or 
St.  Croix.” 

On  the  following  day,  leaving  St.  Andrews,  the  commissioners, 
agents  and  their  assistants  started  up  the  Schoodic  River,  which, 
according  to  the  British  claim,  was  the  St.  Croix  of  the  treaty  of 
1783.  The  wind  failing,  however,  they  were  obliged  to  return 
without  having  accomplished  their  purpose.  Accordingly,  they 
held  a meeting  at  St.  Andrews,  at  which  work  already  performed 
was  reported,  and  arrangements  were  made  for  its  completion. 

Then,  on  October  6th,  the  whole  company  proceeded  to  the 
Magaguadavic  River,  claimed  by  the  American  agent  as  the  river 
St.  Croix  of  the  treaty,  viewed  the  mouth  of  the  river  as  it  empties 
into  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  and  the  island,  which,  according  to  Mr. 
Sullivan,  had  been  named  Isle  de  St.  Croix  by  de  Monts  in  1604. 
On  the  7th,  they  again  visited  the  Schoodic  River,  and  were  shown 
St.  Croix  Island  in  that  river,  also  the  small  island  in  its  front, 
and  as  much  of  the  river  as  the  British  agent  deemed  it  neces- 
sary as  evidence  that  the  island  and  river  corresponded  with  the 
description  given  by  Champlain  and  L’Escarbot.  In  the  evening, 
after  the  return  to  St.  Andrews,  the  commissioners  examined 
under  oath  some  Indians  of  the  Passamaquoddy  and  Machias 
tribes,  who  answered  inquiries  with  reference  to  rivers,  islands, 
their  names,  etc.® 

After  receiving  the  testimony  of  the  Indians,  the  commissioners, 
at  a meeting  held  October  8th,  authorized  the  preparation  of  a 
map  of  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  They  also  adopted  rules  for  authen- 
ticating copies  of  records  and  documents  of  various  kinds,  and 

"^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Bibrary,  First  Series,  I,  21. 

^Ib.,  First  Series,  I,  19,  20. 

® Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  65. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


47 


for  the  examination  of  witnesses,  who  were  unable  personally  to 
appear  before  the  commissioners.^ 

This  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  commission  is  obtained 
for  the  most  part  from  a letter  of  Colonel  Barclay  to  Lord  Gren- 
ville, the  records  of  the  secretary  furnishing  little  information 
except  that  connected  with  the  transaction  of  business.  From 
other  sources,  however,  the  added  fact  is  derived  that  before  the 
arrival  of  the  third  commissioner,  Mr.  Howell  and  Mr.  Sullivan 
explored  the  Magaguadavic  River  and  interviewed  certain  chiefs, 
who  confirmed  the  Indian  testimony  obtained  by  Mitchell  in  1794, 
that  the  Magaguadavic  was  the  river  known  among  the  Indians 
by  the  name  of  St.  Croix. ^ 

Little  could  now  be  done  except  by  the  surveyors,  who  were  to 
continue  their  work  as  long  as  the  season  permitted.  Nor  could 
the  arguments  of  the  agents  be  prepared  in  full,  it  was  said,  until 
the  work  of  the  surveyors  was  placed  in  their  hands.  The  com- 
missioners accordingly  decided  to  adjourn  and  meet  in  Boston  on 
the  second  Tuesday  in  August,  1797. 

Before  the  adjournment,  Mr.  Sullivan  informed  Mr.  Chipman  of 
his  expectation  to  prove  that  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783 
had  in  contemplation  and  believed  that  the  river,  called  in  the 
treaty  the  river  St.  Croix,  was  the  first  river  west  of  the  river  St. 
John;  that  they  had  before  them  at  the  time  Mitchell’s  map,®  on 
which  the  easternmost  river  emptying  into  Passamaquoddy  Bay  is 
the  river  St.  Croix  of  the  boundary;  that  Mr.  Jay  and  Mr.  Adams, 
the  surviving  members  of  the  peace  commission,  and  Mr.  Hart- 
ley,^ the  British  plenipotentiary,  together  with  Lord  St.  Helens  and 
Mr.  Whitford,  secretary  to  the  British  commissioner,  who  were 
then  present,  would  confirm  this  statement  as  to  the  river,  and 

'^Boundary  MSS.,  State  library.  First  Series,  I,  71-82. 

*Ib. , First  Series,  I,  320,  and  seq. 

®It  was  a large  map,  6 feet  4 inches  by  4 feet  4 inches.  A certificate  on  it, 
signed  by  John  Pownall,  secretary  of  the  plantation  office,  is  dated  February 
13,  1755. 

*He  had  succeeded  Mr.  Oswald,  deceased. 


48 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


that  it  was  his  purpose,  in  August,  1797,  to  examine  Mr.  Jay  and 
Mr.  Adams  with  reference  to  the  points  he  had  mentioned.  This 
information  he  gave  to  the  British  agent  in  order  that,  if  he  con- 
sidered it  necessary,  he  might  examine  the  English  parties  men- 
tioned, or  any  other  persons  who  were  present  during  the  treaty 
discussions,  and  also  inquire  whether  Mitchell’s  map  was,  or  was 
not,  the  map  that  was  in  use  by  the  negotiators  in  matters  per- 
taining to  the  boundary. 

Mr.  Sullivan’s  assurance  with  reference  to  this  information  was 
founded  on  a letter  dated  August  2,  1796,  written  by  Mr.  Adams, 
one  of  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  In  that  letter  Mr. 
Adams  wrote:  “Mitchell’s  map  was  the  only  one  which  the 
ministers  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  and  the  ministers 
plenipotentiary  of  Great  Britain  made  use  of  in  their  conferences 
and  discussions  relative  to  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States,  in 
their  negotiation  of  the  peace  of  1783  and  of  the  provisional  arti- 
cles of  the  30th  of  November,  1782.  Upon  that  map,  and  that 
only,  were  those  boundaries  delineated;  and  the  river  marked  on 
that  map  with  the  name  of  St.  Croix  was  the  river  agreed  upon  as 
the  eastern  boundary  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  and  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  not  intended  by  either  party  to  give  any 
new  boundary  to  the  east  side  of  Massachusetts;  but  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  according  to  the 
Charter  of  William  and  Mary,  was  intended  to  be  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  United  States.  To  the  foregoing  facts  I am 
ready  to  attest  in  any  manner  that  may  be  judged  necessary;  and 
if  Mr.  Jay  should  transmit  you  an  affidavit  I shall  be  very  willing 
to  do  the  same.  But  I can  scarcely  think  it  necessary,  because  I 
cannot  believe  that  any  of  these  facts  will  be  denied  or  questioned. 
The  decease  of  Mr.  Oswald  is  unfortunate,  because  I am  well 
assured  he  would  have  avowed  all  these  facts  with  the  utmost 
frankness  and  candor.”^ 

During  the  interim  both  agents  were  busily  employed  in  obtain- 
ing from  books,  maps,  etc.,  materials  for  their  arguments,  and 

'^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  II,  287,  288. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


49 


also  in  preparing  the  arguments.  December  2,  1796,  Mr.  Sullivan 
wrote  to  Mr.  Chipman:  “l  have  been  too  much  engaged  in  vari- 
ous public  avocations  to  arrange  my  intended  arguments  on  the 

St.  Croix  controversy The  assistance  which  I flattered 

myself  to  obtain  is  not  afforded  tome.”^  Nevertheless,  January 
28,  1797,  he  had  forwarded  not  only  the  first  part  of  his  argument, 
but  a promise  of  the  remainder  by  a later  conveyance.  “The 
books  I refer  to  in  the  margin,”  he  added,  “are  such  as  are  within 
your  reach  excepting  some  which  are  in  public  libraries  here,  and 
which  are  out  of  my  power  to  send  you;  but  you  will  have  access 
to  them  all  when  we  shall  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  in  Bos- 
ton.”* On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Chipman  was  so  well  pleased 
with  the  unfolding  of  his  own  argument  that  in  a letter  to  Colonel 
Barclay,  written  at  St.  John  on  the  same  day,  he  made  this  men- 
tion of  the  rough  draft  of  his  brief,  “l  feel  satisfied  with  my 
labor.”' 

When  the  commissioners  convened  in  Boston,  August  11,  1797,^ 
the  arguments  of  the  agents  were  received  and  filed  by  the  com- 
missioners. Mr.  Sullivan  aimed  to  'show  by  various  lines  of 
evidence  that  the  river  Magaguadavic  is  the  river  St.  Croix 
mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  1783  as  the  river  of  that  name,  and 

^ Ward  Chipman  MSS.  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society.  These 
manuscripts  concerning  the  boundary  came  into  the  possession  of  the  society 
by  a noteworthy  discovery.  Mr.  William  H.  Kilby,  of  Eastport,  Maine,  on 
landing  from  a steamer  at  Boston  about  twenty  years  ago,  noticed  on  the 
wharf  some  bales  of  waste  paper  from  which  manuscript  material  had  fallen. 
An  examination  revealed  the  fact  that  these  bales  contained  papers  relating 
to  the  northeastern  boundary,  and  Mr.  Kilby  obtained  from  the  junk  dealer 
to  whom  the  bales  were  consigned  permission  to  make  an  added  examination, 
which  showed  that  these  papers  had  once  belonged  to  Ward  Chipman,  the 
British  agent  connected  with  the  St.  Croix  commission.  After  making  use 
of  this  material  for  historical  purposes,  he  gave  the  collection  to  the  Maine 
Historical  Society. 

2lb. 

sib. 

*The  meeting  was  not  held  on  the  day  to  which  adjournment  was  made, 
owing  to  the  illness  of  Mr.  Benson.  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  73. 


4 


50 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


forming  a part  of  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries.  Espe- 
cial emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  fact  that  on  Mitchell’s  map/  which 
was  the  map  used  by  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty,  the  river  St. 
Croix  empties  into  Passamaquoddy  Bay  on  its  easterly  side;  that 
such  a river  must  be  found  in  order  to  meet  the  intentions  of  the 
negotiators  because  of  their  use  of  this  map,  and  that  the  Maga- 
guadavic,  and  the  Magaguadavic  only,  is  a river  that  answers  to 
the  St.  Croix  of  Mitchell’s  map.  To  this  fact,  it  was  said,  wit- 
nesses would  be  called,  whose  testimony  would  be  conclusive. 
“Upon  that  map,”  it  was  added,  “all  the  boundaries  agreed  upon 
were  marked  and  delineated.  Whether  the  river  called  the  Maga- 
guadavic was,  or  was  not,  what  was  formerly  known  by  the  name 
of  St.  Croix  cannot  be  of  much  consequence  to  consider  now, 
because  the  question  before  the  Board  is  not  what  was  by  the 
French  in  ancient  times  called  the  River  St.  Croix,  or  what  was 
intended  by  a river  of  that  name  in  the  grant  of  Nova  Scotia  by 
King  James  to  Sir  William  Alexander;  or  what  was  called  St. 
Croix  by  the  French  or  English  before  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  The 
question  is  what  river  w'as  truly  intended  by  the  River  St.  Croix 
in  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  forming  a part  of  the  boundaries  therein 
described.”  ^ 

The  British  agent  in  his  argument  devoted  considerable  space 
to  an  examination  of  the  ancient  boundaries  of  Nova  Scotia,  call- 
ing especial  attention  to  an  act  of  Parliament  in  1744,  in  which  it 
was  enacted  “that  the  river,  which  emptieth  itself  into  Passama- 

1 The  map  which  Mr.  Sullivan  offered  as  evidence  at  this  time  was  the  iden- 
tical copy  of  Mitchell’s  map  which  the  commissioners  in  Paris  had  before 
them  in  negotiating  the  treaty  of  1783.  It  was  found  in  the  office  of  the  sec- 
retary of  state  in  Washington,  and  had  on  it,  traced  with  a pen  or  pencil,  the 
boundary  line  through  the  middle  of  the  St.  Croix  River  as  laid  down  on 
that  map,  and  also  northward  from  the  source  of  that  river.  Inquiries  have 
been  made  at  the  department  of  state  with  reference  to  this  map  in  compara- 
tively recent  years,  but  search  for  it  has  not  been  successful.  Moore,  hiterna- 
tional  Arbitratio7is,  I,  39,  40,  also  156,  157.  It  is  not  in  the  State  House  in 
Augusta,  nor  is  it  in  the  collection  of  maps  in  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 

- Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  III,  182,  183. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


51 


cadie  or  Passamaquoddy  Bay  on  the  western  side,  and  is  commonly 
called  or  known  by  the  name  of  St.  Croix  River,  be  held  and 
deemed  for  all  the  purposes  in  this  act  contained  to  be  the  botmd- 
ary  line  between  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Nova 
Scotia.”  This  act,  he  said,  mentioned  no  new  boundary,  but 
confirmed  and  established  the  river  St.  Croix  as  a boundary 
between  Nova  Scotia  and  the  territory  of  New  England,  already 
recognized  by  grants,  charters  and  treaties  from  the  patent  to  Sir 
William  Alexander  in  1621  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  government 
of  Massachusetts  down  to  the  peace  of  1783;  that  treaty  intending 
that  no  part  of  Nova  Scotia  should  be  ceded  to  the  United  States. 
He  also  not  only  presented  various  lines  of  evidence  in  support 
of  his  contention  that  the  Schoodic  River  was  the  true  St.  Croix  of 
the  treaty,  but  he  sought  to  break  the  force  of  the  argument 
drawn  by  the  American  agent  from  Mitchell’s  map,  and  the  nego- 
tiator’s use  of  it,  by  a reference  to  its  incorrectness,  being  made 
on  a very  small  scale. 

The  incompleteness  of  the  arguments  was  asserted  by  both 
agents.  The  surveys  had  not  been  finished  and  made  ready  for 
their  use.  Mr.  Sullivan  said  he  had  been  able  to  make  only  a 
cursory  examination  of  Mr.  Chipman’s  argument.  Moreover,  the 
books  and  documents  of  various  kinds  to  which  his  attention  had 
been  called  by  the  British  agent  could  not  be  procured  and  exam- 
ined without  sufficient  time  for  the  purpose.  Both  agents  filed 
certain  depositions,  etc.,  and  then,  in  accordance  with  an  under- 
standing when  the  commissioners  adjourned  in  1796  to  meet  in 
Boston,  the  commissioners,  August  18,  1797,  proceeded  to  Quincy, 
Massachusetts,  where,  in  answer  to  questions  asked  by  the  Amer- 
ican agent.  President  Adams,  one  of  the  treaty  plenipotentiaries 
in  1783,  was  examined  concerning  boundary  negotiations. 

Mitchell’s  map,  he  said,  was  the  only  map  which  was  used  by 
the  plenipotentiaries  who  framed  the  treaty  of  peace,  though 
other  maps  were  occasionally  consulted  by  the  American  repre- 
sentatives at  their  lodgings.  Lines  at  that  time  were  marked  on 

Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  IV,  129-169. 


52 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Mitchell’s  map  as  designating  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States. 
The  British  commissioners  first  claimed  to  the  Piscataqua  River, 
then  to  the  Kennebec,  then  to  the  Penobscot,  and  at  length  agreed 
to  the  St.  Croix  as  marked  on  Mitchell’s  map.  One  of  the  Amer- 
ican ministers  first  proposed  the  river  St.  John,  but  as  the  St. 
Croix  was  the  river  mentioned  in  the  charter  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  he  finally  agreed  with  his  colleagues  to  adhere  to  the  desig- 
nation in  the  charter.  It  is  very  probable,  said  Mr.  Adams,  that 
the  patent  of  King  James  to  Sir  William  Alexander,  and  an  act  or 
acts  of  Parliament  might  be  produced  and  argued  on;  but  he  did 
not  recollect  any  particular  use  that  was  made  of  them.  Nothing 
ultimately  was  relied  upon  that  interfered  with  the  charter  of 
Massachusetts  Bay.  No  other  map  than  Mitchell’s  was  before 
the  commissioners  when  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  was  pre- 
pared, according  to  his  recollection.  Documents  from  the  public 
offices  in  England  were  brought  over,  and  laid  before  the  negotia- 
tors, in  answer  to  which  the  memorials  of  Governor  Shirley  and 
others  were  produced;  also  the  counter  memorials  of  the  French 
commissioners  at  Paris  in  a printed  quarto  volume;  also  a report 
of  Mr.  Hutchinson  to  the  General  Court,  printed  in  a journal  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  not  many  years  from  1760,  and  cer- 
tain proceedings  of  Governors  Pownal  and  Bernard  recorded  also 
in  the  journals  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  ultimate 
agreement  was  to  adhere  to  the  charter  of  the  Province  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  and  to  the  river  St.  Croix  mentioned  in  it,  which 
was  supposed  to  be  delineated  correctly  on  Mitchell’s  map. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Sullivan’s  examination  of  Mr.  Adams, 
the  commissioners,  probably  at  the  suggestion  of  Colonel  Barclay, 
asked  the  president,  “Do  you  know  whether  it  was  understood, 
intended  or  agreed,  between  the  British  and  American  commis- 
sioners, that  the  River  St.  Croix,  as  marked  on  Mitchell’s  map, 
should  so  be  the  boundary  as  to  preclude  all  inquiry  respecting 
any  error  or  mistake  in  the  said  map  in  designating  the  River  St. 
Croix?  Or  was  there  any,  if  so  what,  understanding,  intent  or 
agreement  between  the  Commissioners  relative  to  the  case,  or 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


53 


error,  or  mistake,  in  the  said  map?”  To  these  inquiries  Mr. 
Adams  answered:  “The  case  of  such  supposed  error,  or  mistake, 
was  not  suggested;  consequently,  there  was  no  understanding, 
intent  or  agreement  expressed  respecting  it.”^  These  questions 
of  the  commissioners,  and  the  answers  made  to  them  by  Mr. 
Adams,  brought  at  once  into  view  important  considerations.  Mr. 
Sullivan  had  established  the  fact  that  Mitchell’s  map  was  the  only 
map  used  in  connection  with  the  treaty  negotiations,  and  that  the 
St.  Croix  River  on  that  map  was  supposed  to  be  the  river  St. 
Croix  of  the  boundary  between  the  Province  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  and  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia.  But  a further  inquiry  was 
now  suggested  as  pertinent,  viz.,  whether  the  St.  Croix  of  Mitch- 
ell’s map  might  not  have  been  erroneously  located?  Evidently 
this  inquiry  of  the  commissioners  had  not  been  anticipated  by 
Mr.  Adams,  while  his  answer  could  hardly  have  been  anticipated 
by  Mr.  Sullivan. 

This  part  of  Mr.  Adams’  testimony  was  confirmed  by  Mr.  Jay, 
who  in  a deposition,  subsequently  presented,  stated  that  it  was 
agreed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  that  the  river  St.  Croix,  laid  down 
on  Mitchell’s  map,  was  the  river  St.  Croix  forming  a part  of  the 
boundary  between  the  two  countries;  “but,”  he  added,  “whether 
that  river  was  then  so  decidedly  and  permanently  adopted  and 
agreed  upon  by  the  parties  as  conclusively  to  bind  the  two  nations 
to  that  limit,  even  in  case  it  should  afterwards  appear  that  Mitchell 
had  been  mistaken,  and  that  the  true  river  St.  Croix  was  a differ- 
ent one  from  that  which  is  delineated  by  that  name  on  his  map, 
was  a question  or  case  which  he  does  not  recollect  nor  believe  was 

then  put  or  talked  of For  his  own  part  he  was  of  the 

opinion  that  the  easterly  boundaries  of  the  United  States  ought, 
on  principles  of  right  and  justice,  to  be  the  same  with  the  east- 
erly boundaries  of  the  late  colony  or  province  of  Massachusetts.” 
When  he  was  asked  for  any  “particular  and  explicit  declarations” 
that  would  authorize  him  to  say  that  the  part  of  the  boundary  line 
formed  by  the  St.  Croix  River  was  “mutually  and  clearly  con- 

Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  VII,  101-103. 


54 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ceived  and  admitted”  to  be  also  a part  of  the  eastern  boundary  of 
Massachusetts,  Mr.  Jay  replied  that  at  that  distance  of  time  he 
could  not  remember.  Indeed,  he  had  doubts,  he  added,  if  there 
were  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  very  clear  conceptions  with  refer- 
ence to  the  easterly  extent  of  Massachusetts.^ 

In  a letter  to  Judge  Parsons,  Mr.  Sullivan  expressed  his  surprise 
at  the  admissions  of  these  important  witnesses.  “Mr.  Adams  and 
Jay  testify  that  they  were  governed  by  Mitchell’s  map,  but  add 
(strangely)  that  the  bounds  of  the  charter  of  Massachusetts  were 
intended;  when  in  fact  the  charter  of  1692  [l69l]  was  bounded 
on  the  Gulf  and  River  St.  Lawrence.  All  Nova  Scotia  was,  by 
the  charter  of  William  and  Mary,  a part  of  Massachusetts,  and 
separated  from  it  after  the  treaty  of  Ryswick,  in  1700,  or  about 
that  time.”  A fuller  disclosure  of  Mr.  Sullivan’s  surprise  is  dis- 
coverable in  his  added  words,  “There  have  great  difl&culties 
resulted  from  that  expression  in  these  testimonies.”^  Colonel 
Barclay,  as  may  easily  be  inferred,  was  as  much  elated  by  Mr. 
Adams’  testimony  as  Mr.  Sullivan  had  been  surprised  and  de- 
pressed. 

Franklin,  another  of  the  American  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of 
1783,  died  in  Philadelphia,  April  17,  1790;  but  a letter  written  by 
him  to  Jefferson  only  nine  days  before  his  death  was  laid  before 
the  commission,  thus  completing  the  testimony  of  the  three  pleni- 
potentiaries from  the  United  States.  “l  can  assure  you,”  he 
wrote,  “that  I am  perfectly  clear  in  the  remembrance  that  the 
map  we  used  in  tracing  the  boundary  was  brought  to  the  treaty 
by  the  commissioners  from  England,  and  that  it  was  the  same 
that  was  published  by  Mitchell  above  twenty  years  before.  Hav- 
ing a copy  of  that  map  by  me  in  loose  sheets,  I send  you  that 

'^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  VII,  245-247.  The  deposi- 
tion was  taken  May  21,  1798,  before  Commissioner  Benson  as  one  of  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  New  York,  but  it  was  not  filed 
with  the  commissioners  until  September  19th  following.  Boundary  MSS. , 
State  Library,  First  Series,  I,  146. 

^Amory’s  Life  and  Writings  of  fames  Sullivan,  I,  328. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


55 


sheet  which  contains  the  bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  where  you  will 

see  that  part  of  the  boundaiy  traced That  the  map  we 

used  was  Mitchell’s  map,  Congress  was  acquainted  with  at  the 
time  by  a letter  to  their  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  which  I sup- 
pose may  be  found  on  their  files.”  ^ 

Early  during  the  meeting  of  the  commission  in  Boston,  Mr. 
Sullivan  filed  certain  depositions  having  reference  to  matters  pre- 
sented in  his  argument.  The  most  important  was  the  deposition 
of  John  Mitchell,  who  made  a survey  of  the  Magaguadavic  or  St. 
Croix  River  in  1764,  to  which  was  added  the  deposition  of  Israel 
Jones  relative  to  the  survey  of  the  St.  Croix. ^ The  British  agent 
filed  extracts  from  Champlain’s  Voyages  with  plans;  affidavits  of 
Charles  Morris,  deputy  surveyor  general,  and  depositions  of  Alex- 
ander Hodges,  James  Brown,  Jeremiah  Frost,  John  Curry  and 
Robert  Pagan.* 

Evidently  until  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  St.  Croix  com- 
mission in  Boston,  Mr.  Sullivan  had  regarded  the  American  claim 
as  establishing  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries.  This 
claim,  now  made  assailable  by  the  testimony  of  the  negotiators, 
was  also  assailed  by  evidence  offered  by  the  British  agent  to  show 
that  the  St.  Croix  Island  of  the  Schoodic  River,  and  visited  by  the 
commissioners  in  1796,  was  the  St.  Croix  Island  of  the  de  Monts 
settlement  in  the  winter  of  1604-1605;  that  the  Schoodic  River  was 
the  St.  Croix  River  in  which  the  island  is  located,  both  the  river 
and  the  island  being  so  named  by  de  Monts;  and  that  this  river, 
with  its  designation  thus  received,  was  the  St.  Croix  River  of 
ancient  maps  and  charters. 

Such  had  been  the  British  claim  from  the  beginning  of  the  ses- 
sions of  the  commission;  but  the  works  of  Champlain,  the  histo- 
torian  of  de  Monts’  colony,  were  not  then  accessible.  The  best 
American  libraries  at  that  time  were  scantily  supplied,  and  books 

"^Boundary  MSS.^  State  Library,  First  Series,  VII,  239,  240. 

* The  deposition  is  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  attached 
to  John  Mitchell’s  diary  of  his  survey  in  1764. 

^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  I,  95-97. 


56 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


from  the  old  world  could  be  obtained  only  after  long  delays  occa- 
sioned by  the  irregular  communications  of  that  time.  At  length, 
in  the  summer  of  1797,  the  British  agent  received  from  England 
an  ink  tracing  of  Champlain’s  map  of  St.  Croix  Island  and  the  St. 
Croix  River  in  that  part  in  which  the  island  is  located.^  Colonel 
Barclay,  in  a letter  to  Rord  Grenville,  dated  Annapolis,  September 
8,  1797,  tells  how  the  tracing  was  secured,  and  the  use  that  was 
made  of  it.  “His  Grace,  the  Duke  of  Portland,  having  forwarded 
to  Mr.  Chipman,  his  Majesty’s  Agent,  extracts  from  Champlain 
and  copies  of  his  maps,  particularly  of  the  River  St.  Croix  and 
the  island  on  which  the  French  built  and  wintered  in  1604,  and 
that  map  having  represented  the  situation  and  extent  of  the  build- 
ings on  the  island,  Mr.  Chipman  immediately  sent  to  a gentleman 
residing  near  that  place  a copy  of  the  map  and  requested  him  to 
dig  agreeably  to  the  positions  laid  down.”*  The  gentleman  to 
whom  Colonel  Barclay  referred  was  Mr.  Robert  Pagan  of  St. 
Andrews.  He  probably  received  the  tracing  about  the  middle  of 
June.  In  a letter  to  Mr.  Chipman,  dated  St.  Andrews,  June  19, 
1797,  Mr.  Pagan  gives  an  extended  account  of  a visit  to  St.  Croix 
Island,  and  of  the  many  points  of  identification  examined  by  him 
and  his  party,  the  identified  locations  corresponding  with  the 
locations  of  buildings  on  Champlain’s  map. 

July  7,  1797,  Mr.  Pagan  again  visited  St.  Croix  Island.  In  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Chipman  on  the  same  day,  he  reported  the  discovery 
of  piles  of  bricks  at  regular  distances  from  each  other,  also  stones 
laid  one  upon  another  in  clay  and  several  tiers  deep,  all  in  the 
exact  range  described  in  Champlain’s  plan  of  the  buildings  con- 
structed by  de  Monts.  So  striking  was  the  correspondence,  he 
added,  “that  no  person  whatever  can,  after  examining  them, 

^This  tracing,  found  with  the  Ward  Chipman  MSS.  that  fell  into  the  hands 
of  Mr.  Kilby  as  already  mentioned,  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Maine  Histor- 
ical Society.  Attached  to  it  is  this  note:  ‘‘Copied  from  a facsimile  (made 
by  a Notary  Public  in  L/ondon  (attested  under  the  seal  of  that  city)  of  a map 
ill  Champlain’s  Voyages,  published  at  Paris  anno  1613.” 

‘^Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  75,  76. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


57 


avoid  being-  convinced  beyond  the  possibility  of  a doubt  that  this 
is  St.  Croix  Island.”  A subsequent  visit  to  the  island  with  sev- 
eral other  persons  was  reported  to  Mr.  Chipman  by  Mr.  Pagan  on 
July  20th.  “in  digging  for  a few  minutes  near  some  of  the  ruins,” 
he  wrote,  “we  turned  up  with  a spade  a metal  spoon,  a musket 
ball,  a spike-nail  and  a piece  of  stone- ware,  all  of  which  bear  evi- 
dent marks  of  antiquity.”  These  and  other  relics,  with  his  own 
deposition  as  to  these  discoveries,  and  the  depositions  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  visited  the  island  with  him,  Mr.  Pagan  sent  to  Mr. 
Chipman.  “if  the  different  depositions  are  not  sufficiently  satis- 
factory to  the  commissioners,  I hope  they  will  conclude  to  meet 
here  and  satisfy  themselves  on  the  view,  when  I am  confident  a 
shadow  of  a doubt  will  not  remain  in  any  of  their  minds  of  Doceas 
Island  being  the  St.  Croix  Island  of  de  Monts.” 

When  Mr.  Pagan’s  letters,^  with  his  deposition  and  the  deposi- 
tions of  the  gentlemen  who  accompanied  him  in  his  discoveries 
were  laid  before  the  commissioners,  their  importance  was  at  once 
recognized;  but  it  was  urged  that  before  their  consideration  there 
should  also  be  an  examination  of  other  islands  indicated  in  the 
American  claim,  and  the  commissioners  ordered  that  Robert 
Pagan  and  Joseph  Garnet,  named  by  the  British  agent,  and  Phin- 
ehas  Bruce  and  John  Cooper,  named  by  the  American  agent, 
should  broaden  the  investigations  already  made  by  “digging  upon 
and  examining  any  islands  in  or  near  Passamaquoddy  Bay.”® 
With  this  action  at  the  close  of  its  session  in  Boston,  the  commis- 
sion, August  16th,  adjourned  to  meet  in  Providence,  R.  I.,  on 
the  first  Monday  in  June,  1798. 

Evidently  the  action  of  the  commissioners,  in  the  appointment 
of  Messrs.  Pagan,  Garnet,  Bruce  and  Cooper  to  broaden  the  inves- 

1 A common  designation  for  St.  Croix  Island  at  that  time.  Later  it  appeared 
as  Docias,  Dochez,  Doucetts  and  Dochet.  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society 
of  Canada,  Second  Series,  1902-1903,  VIII,  142. 

^The  Pagan  letters  are  among  the  Ward  Chipman  MSS.,  library  of  the 
Maine  Historical  Society. 

^Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  I,  107,  108. 


58 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


tigations  made  at  St.  Croix  Island,  led  to  no  results.  In  fact,  as 
early  as  the  beginning  of  1798,  Colonel  Barclay  regarded  the  evi- 
dence for  the  British  case  as  established  so  far  as  to  leave  the 
Magaguadavic  River  out  of  further  consideration  as  the  intended 
St.  Croix  of  the  treaty.  In  a letter  to  Mr.  Chipman,  January  9th, 
concerning  his  future  management  of  the  British  case,  Colonel 
Barclay  said  that  in  his  opinion  the  question  that  remained  was 
whether  the  Schoodic,  in  its  western  branch,  or  the  Chiputneti- 
cook,  in  its  northern  branch,  was  to  be  followed,  “if  the  line  is 
to  be  run  from  the  source  of  the  Chiputneticook,”  he  wrote,  “his 
Majesty  will  lose  a large  part  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick, 

which  could  never  have  been  intended If  you  can  once 

establish  the  general  idea  of  our  government,  that  will  be  prima 
facie  evidence,  and  must  prevail  unless  on  the  part  of  the  Ameri- 
cans they  can  show  an  opposite  opinion.”^ 

Meanwhile  Mr.  Sullivan  was  preparing  his  supplementary  argu- 
ment in  reply  to  that  of  the  British  agent.  But  early  in  the  year, 
he  saw  the  impossibility  of  securing  not  only  the  books,  etc., 
bearing  upon  questions  that  had  been  raised  by  Mr.  Chipman,  but 
the  river  surveys  which  were  far  from  completion,  and  he  sug- 
gested a postponement  of  the  meeting  of  the  commission  in  Prov- 
idence until  the  surveys  were  made.  The  British  commissioner 
and  agent  gave  their  consent  to  the  proposed  postponement,  as 
also  did  the  American  commissioners  after  correspondence  with 
the  British  commissioner;  and  the  meeting  of  the  commission  in 
Providence  was  postponed  from  the  first  Monday  in  June,  1798, 
to  August  15th  following.^  At  the  meeting  in  Providence  the 
commissioners  heard  the  additional  arguments  of  the  agents  of  the 
two  countries.  Mr.  Sullivan’s  argument  forms  a manuscript  vol- 
ume of  five  hundred  and  thirty-four  pages.  In  it  he  contended 
that  the  discoveries  made  by  Mr.  Pagan  failed  to  furnish  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  Dochet  Island,  on  which  these  discoveries  were 
made,  was  the  island  on  which  de  Monts  established  his  colony  in 

1 Ward  Chipynan  MSS. , library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 

‘^Boundary  MSS.,  State  library.  First  Series,  VII,  111,  112. 


_r 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


59 


1604,  insisting  that  the  history  of  the  enterprise,  and  the  circum- 
stances attending  de  Monts’  occupation  of  the  island  where  he 
wintered,  were  against  any  such  claim. ^ 

The  British  agent,  however,  having  established,  as  he  believed, 
his  contention  that  Dochet  Island  was  the  island  on  which  de 
Monts  located  his  colony  and  which  he  named  St.  Croix,  now 
bent  all  his  energies  to  establish  his  added  contention  that  the 
Schoodic  River  was  the  river  to  which  the  name  St.  Croix  was 
originally  given  by  de  Monts,  and  which  became  the  western 
boundary  of  Nova  Scotia,  claiming  that  the  line  of  the  treaty  fol- 
lowed its  western  branch  toward  the  Penobscot,  thus  giving  to 
Great  Britain  a larger  extent  of  territory  than  if  the  line  was 
made  to  follow  the  northern,  or  Chiputneticook  branch  of  the 
Schoodic. 

About  this  time  Mr.  Sullivan  became  apprehensive  that  one  of 
the  American  commissioners,  Mr.  Benson,  would  allow  his  oppo- 
nent’s claim,  and  give  to  Great  Britain  the  country  as  far  as  the 
Penobscot.  In  a letter  dated  September  29,  1798,  he  wrote  to 
Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States,  as  follows 
concerning  Mr.  Benson’s  attitude:  “He  seems  to  be  impressed 
with  an  idea  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  United  States 
how  this  line  is  settled.  I wonder  at  his  embracing  this  opinion, 
because  there  is  on  the  table  a file  of  papers,  frequently  referred  to, 
consisting  of  the  zealous  proceedings  of  Massachusetts,  from  the 
treaty  of  peace  to  the  treaty  of  amity,  in  order  to  remove  the 
English  people  from  St.  Andrews.  Judge  Howell  and  myself  are 
clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  Magaguadavic  is  the  river  truly 
intended;  and  that  on  a fair  construction  of  all  the  evidence  that 
river  ought  now  to  be  fixed  as  the  boundary.”  But  there  were 
difficulties  of  a public  nature  in  the  country  that  induced  him  to 
add:  “l  should  not  be  uneasy  at  a unanimous  result  that  the 
Scoodiac  is  the  St.  Croix  intended,  and  that  the  lake  from  which 
the  north  branch  issues  is  the  source.  The  quantity  of  land 
between  the  Magaguadavic  and  the  Schoodiac  north  branch  is 

''■Boundary  MSS.,  State  l,ibrary,  First  Series,  V,  213-255. 


60 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


about  two  million  of  acres,  and  has  been  granted  by  the  English 
government.  The  lakes  from  which  the  Magaguadavic  and  the 
Cheputneticut  issue  respectively  are  but  nine  miles  apart.  The 
strip  of  land  between  lines  drawn  due  north  from  these  sources 
to  the  highlands  is  not  considerable;  but  the  territory  between 
a north  line  from  the  Schoodiac  lake,  near  Penobscot  river,  is 
very  great;  and  three  million  of  acres  have  been  granted  by 
Massachusetts.” 

The  apprehensions  of  the  American  agent  with  reference  to 
Mr,  Benson,  however,  were  happily  dissipated.^  Mr.  Benson 
evidently  thought  it  was  of  little  consequence  how  the  line  was 
settled.  Eater  in  the  controversy,  Maine  had  good  reason  to  com- 
plain of  the  manifestation  of  a spirit  of  indifference  on  the  part  of 
the  nation  as  a whole  with  reference  to  the  boundary  line.  But 
neither  records  nor  maps  had  represented  the  western  boundary 
of  Nova  Scotia  as  approaching  the  Penobscot,  and  it  may  be  that 
Mr.  Sullivan  and  Judge  Howell  now  brought  the  Magaguadavic 
again  into  view  so  as  to  give  an  acceptance  of  the  northern  branch 
of  the  Schoodic  the  appearance  of  a compromise  in  the  settlement. 

Certainly,  considerations  with  reference  to  the  importance  of 
securing  the  acceptance  of  such  a line  as  a compromise  were  those 
that  not  long  after  brought  Mr.  Liston,  the  British  minister,  to 
Providence,  where  he  had  an  early  interview  with  both  the  Brit- 
ish commissioner  and  the  British  agent.  A letter  from  Mr.  Chip- 
man  to  Mr.  Liston,  dated  October  23,  1798,  marked  “private,” 
and  also  a letter  of  the  same  date  from  Mr.  Liston  to  Mr.  Chip- 

^Mr.  Benson  prepared  a report  stating  the  reasons  that  induced  the  com- 
missioners to  decide  that  the  Schoodic  River  was  the  St.  Croix  River  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  and  a copy  of  this  report  he  presented  to  President  Washing- 
ton. A revised  copy  of  the  report  was  subsequently  presented  by  Mr.  Ben- 
son to  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  in  whose  proceedings  (Third 
Series,  Vol.  Ill,  349-368)  the  report  was  printed,  with  added  remarks  by 
Justin  Winsor.  Among  the  Barclay  manuscripts  presented  to  the  Maine  His- 
torical Society  by  Mr.  George  L.  Rives,  on  the  completion  of  the  Corre- 
spondence of  Thomas  Barclay,  there  is  a duplicate  original  copy  of  this  report, 
and  a reprint  of  Mr.  Benson’s  report  from  this  copy  will  be  found  in  Moore’s 
International  Arbitrations,  I,  33-43. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


61 


man,  were  doubtless  written  in  order  to  secure  an  official  record 
of  the  situation.  According  to  the  first  of  these  letters,  Mr. 
Chipman  had  been  informed  that  the  commissioners  had  decided 
to  consider  the  Schoodic  to  be  the  river  St.  Croix  truly  intended 
under  that  name  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  Differences,  however,  had 
arisen  concerning  the  source  of  the  river.  Colonel  Barclay,  who 
had  contended  that  this  source  was  to  be  found  in  the  most  remote 
western  spring  of  a chain  of  lakes  far  toward  the  Penobscot,  had 
now  come  to  the  position  of  Mr.  Benson,  who  insisted  that  a chain 
of  lakes  could  not  be  called  a river,  and  found  the  source  of  the 
Schoodic  in  lake  Genesagarumsis;  while  Mr.  Howell  maintained 
that  the  source  of  the  river  was  in  the  first  lake  which  the  Chiput- 
neticook  (the  north  branch  of  the  Schoodic)  entered.  In  the 
positions  taken  by  Colonel  Barclay  and  Mr.  Benson,  Mr.  Chipman 
said  he  found  consequences  inconvenient  if  not  injurious  to  the 
interests  of  New  Brunswick,  as  it  would  leave  the  military  posts 
at  Presque  Isle  and  Grand  Falls,  and  every  part  of  the  river  St. 
John  above  Presque  Isle,  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 
At  the  same  time,  however,  it  would  leave  within  the  limits  of 
British  territory  a large  tract  of  country  that  had  been  granted  to 
settlers  by  Massachusetts. 

This  last  consideration  was  a matter  of  such  great  importance 
in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Sullivan  that  he  went  to  Mr.  Chipman  with 
the  proposal  of  an  agreement,  on  the  part  of  the  American  and 
British  agents,  to  recommend  “an  accommodation  between  the  two 
governments”  by  making  the  northernmost  source  of  the  Chiput- 
neticook  the  source  of  the  Schoodic,  now  to  be  known  as  the  St. 
Croix,  in  lieu  of  the  source  agreed  upon  by  Colonel  Barclay  and 
Mr.  Benson.  In  this  proposal  Mr.  Chipman  found  hope  for  an 
unanimous  agreement  upon  the  part  of  the  commissioners;  and  in 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Liston  he  said  he  would  not  hesitate  to  accede  to 
it  in  the  endeavor  to  effect  a decision,  as  such  an  undertaking  was 
within  his  duty  or  power  as  the  British  agent.  He  therefore  laid 
the  matter  before  the  British  minister,  probably  with  the  knowl- 
edge and  approval  of  the  British  commissioner.  In  his  reply  Mr. 


62 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Liston  consented  to  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Sullivan,  and  promised  to 
take  the  earliest  opportunity  of  expressing  to  Lord  Grenville  his 
satisfaction  with  the  result  in  justification  of  the  action  of  the 
British  agent  and  the  British  commissioner.^ 

Mr.  Howell  stated  his  position  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Pickering,  the 
United  States  secretary  of  state,  saying  that  before  the  arguments 
were  closed  he  had  fixed  upon  the  northern  branch  of  the  Schoodic 
as  the  boundary  line,  and  added:  “Both  the  other  commissioners, 
I soon  found,  were  as  much  fixed  on  the  western  branch.  Many 
days  were  occupied  by  us  in  consideration  and  discussion  of  the 
subject.  At  length  I was  mortified  to  find  myself  alone,  and  that 
the  other  two  had  prepared  a final  declaration  in  favor  of  the 
western  branch,  which  they  showed  to  me  and  said  they  were 
ready  to  sign.  To  this  I gave  a decided  negative.  I committed 
to  wfiting  my  reasons  of  dissent,  and  put  the  argument  into  their 
hands  for  deliberate  perusal.  After  perusal,  they  returned  it  to 
me.  I told  them  it  was  my  request  that  it  would  be  lodged  on 
file  with  our  secretary  and  made  part  of  our  proceedings.  This 
they  utterly  refused.  I then  told  them  that  I would  think  it  my 
duty  to  transmit  it  to  the  secretary  of  state,  to  be  lodged  in  his 
office  with  the  papers  in  the  case.  To  this  they  could  have  no 
objection.  Some  altercation,  rather  unpleasant,  took  place  be- 
tween my  friend  Benson  and  myself  in  private.  Colonel  Barclay 
seemed  to  keep  himself  on  the  reserve,  and  to  push  our  friend 
Benson  forward.  I had  labored  from  the  first  of  our  discussions 
to  prove  that  the  source  of  either  branch  must  be  where  it  lodges 
itself  in  waters  of  a different  denomination.  In  this  opinion  we 
all  seemed  at  length  to  agree,  they  for  the  issuing  of  the  waters  of 
the  western  branch  out  of  the  Lake  Genegenasarumsis  (if  I spell 
it  right),  and  I for  the  issuing  of  the  waters  of  the  north  branch 
out  of  the  first  lake.  While  things  were  in  this  posture,  some- 
thing like  a negotiation,  started  by  Judge  Sullivan,  and,  I believe, 
assented  to  by  Mr.  Liston,  who  was  then  in  Providence  on  his 

^ Correspondence  of  Thofnas  Barclay,  87-90.  The  originals  of  both  of  these 
letters  are  in  the  Barclay  collection,  Maine  Historical  Society. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


63 


way  westward,  carried  them  to  the  north  branch,  and  induced  me 
to  agree  with  them  in  our  final  result;  to  induce  me  to  which 
Judge  Sullivan  read  to  me  your  letters  to  him,  in  which  you  con- 
tended that  the  source  of  a river  must  be  at  the  most  remote 
waters  which  flow  into  it. 

“it  must  be  allowed  that  there  is  room  for  debate  and  for  a 
diversity  of  opinion  on  this  question,  whether  the  source  of  the 
north  branch  is  at  the  first  lake,  or  where  we  have  fixed  it;  and 
this,  being  a matter  of  judgment,  was  a subject  of  accommodation. 
I considered  it  as  a fortunate  circumstance  that  all  the  claims  of 
individuals  are  quieted;  and  the  satisfaction  expressed  by  both 
agents  gave  reason  to  hope  that  the  parties  more  immediately 
interested  would  readily  acquiesce  in  our  result.”  ‘ 

All  differences  having  now  been  harmonized,  the  declaration  of 
the  commissioners  was  made  October  25,  1798.  It  follows  in  full:* 

We,  the  said  commissioners,  having  been  sworn  “impartially  to  examine 
and  decide  the  said  question,  according  to  such  evidence  as  should  respec- 
tively be  laid  before  us,  on  the  part  of  the  British  government  and  of  the 
United  States,”  and  having  heard  the  evidence  which  hath  been  laid  before 
us  by  the  agent  of  his  Majesty  and  the  agent  of  the  United  States,  respec- 
tively appointed  and  authorized  to  manage  the  business  on  behalf  of  the 
respective  governments,  have  decided,  and  hereby  do  decide,  the  river,  here- 

^Amory’s  Life  of  James  Sullivan,  I,  331,  332.  Colonel  Barclay,  in  a letter 
to  Lord  Grenville  giving  an  extended  account  of  the  way  in  which  the  final 
decision  was  reached,  wrote:  “After  much  debate  between  Mr.  Benson  and 
myself  as  to  the  source  of  the  river,  his  Majesty’s  agent,  with  the  advice  of 
Mr.  Liston,  the  envoy  extraordinary,  requested  me  to  accede  to  the  Chiput- 
neticook  provided  I could  obtain  the  northwest  source  of  that  river.  To  this 
point  Mr.  Benson,  as  a matter  of  negotiation  and  accommodation  between  the 
nations,  readily  assented.  Mr.  Howell  declined  being  a party  to  the  declara- 
tion, until  it  was  engrossed  and  ready  for  execution.  He  then  reluctantly 
directed  his  name  to  be  inserted  in  the  declaration,  which  he  eventually 
signed.”  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  92,  93. 

“The  Declaration  is  in  American  State  Papers,  VI,  921.  It  is  here  given 
as  found  in  Boundary  MSS.,  State  Library,  First  Series,  I,  164-167.  Moore, 
International  Arbitrations,  I,  29-31,  follows  the  manuscript  copy  in  the 
State  Department,  Washington,  in  which  Chiputneticook  appears  as  Chiput- 
naticook  and  Chibnitcook  as  Chibuitcook,  the  copyists  failing  to  add  the  words 
‘ ‘if  I spell  it  right,  ’ ’ as  did  Mr.  Howell  after  wrestling  with  Genegenasarumsis. 


64 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


inafter  particularly  described  and  mentioned,  to  be  the  river  truly  intended 
under  the  name  of  the  River  Saint  Croix,  in  the  said  treaty  of  Peace,  and 
forming  a part  of  the  boundary  therein  described;  that  is  to  say,  The  mouth 
of  the  said  river  is  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  at  a point  of  land  called  Joe’s 
Point,  about  one  mile  northward  from  the  northern  part  of  Saint  Andrew’s 
Island,  and  in  the  latitude  of  forty-five  degrees,  five  minutes  and  five  sec- 
onds north,  and  in  the  longitude  of  sixty-seven  degrees,  twelve  minutes  and 
thirty  seconds  west  from  the  Royal  Observatory  at  Greenwich,  in  Great 
Britain,  and  three  degrees,  fifty-four  minutes  and  fifteen  seconds  east  from 
Harvard  College,  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  in  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  the  course  of  the  said  river, Hip  from  its  said  mouth,  is  northerly  to 
a point  of  land  called  the  Devil’s  Head,  then,  turning  the  said  point,  is  west- 
erly to  where  it  divides  into  two  streams,  the  one  coming  from  the  westward, 
and  the  other  coming  from  the  northward,  having  the  Indian  name  of  Chi- 
putnatecool^or  Chibuitcook,  as  the  same  may  be  variously  spelt,  then  up  the 
said  stream^o  coming  from  the  northward  to  its  source]  which  is  at  a stake 
near  a yellow  birch  tree,  hooped  with  iron  and  marked  S.  T.  and  J.  H.  1797, 
by  Samuel  Titcomb  and  John  Harris,  the  surveyors  employed  to  survey  the 
above  mentioned  stream,  coming  from  the  northward.  And  the  said  river  is 
designated  on  the  map  hereunto  annexed,  and  hereby  referred  to  as  farther 
descriptive  of  it,  by  the  letters  ABCDEFGHIK  and  D,  the  letter  A 
being  at  its  said  mouth,  and  the  letter  D being  at  its  said  source;  and  the 
course  and  distance  of  the  said  source  from  the  island  at  the  confluence  of  the 
above-mentioned  two  streams,  is,  as  laid  down  on  the  said  map,  north  five 
degrees  and  about  fifteen  minutes  west,  by  the  magnet  about  forty-eight 
miles  and  one-quarter. 

In  testimony  whereof,  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hands  and  seals,  at  Provi- 
dence, in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  October,  in  the 
year  one  thousand,  seven  hundred  and  ninety-eight. 

[D.  S.]  Thomas  Barclay, 
[U.  S.J  David  HowEDb, 

[D.  S.]  Egbert  Benson. 

Witness,  Ed.  Winslow, 

Secretary  to  the  Commissioners. 

By  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  general  the  declaration  of 
the  commissioners  was  cordially  approved.  President  Adams,  in 
his  second  annual  message,  which  was  laid  before  Congress  Decem- 
ber 8,  1798,  said:  “This  decision,  it  is  understood,  will  preclude 
all  contention  among  individual  claimants,  as  it  seems  that  the 
Scudiac  and  its  northern  branch  bound  the  grants  of  land  which 
have  been  made  by  the  respective  adjoining  governments.”^  But 

'^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  I,  274. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


65 


in  the  District  of  Maine,  especially  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  dis- 
trict among  the  settlers  who  had  ardently  espoused  the  American 
claim,  the  decision  was  the  occasion  of  great  disappointment  in 
that  it  failed  to  carry  the  boundary  as  far  to  the  eastward  as  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  were  believed  to  carry  it.  Moreover,  it  was 
not  easy  for  them  to  obtain  the  reasons  for  this  action  on  the  part 
of  the  commissioners.  Newspapers  were  few,  and  these  paid  only 
scant,  if  indeed  any,  attention  to  matters  that  properly  might 
have  been  regarded  as  possessing  great  public  interest.  The  only 
information  they  received  for  some  time  was  contained  in  the  dec- 
laration announcing  the  decision  that  made  the  Schoodic,  not  the 
Magaguadavic,  the  St.  Croix  of  the  treaty  of  1783;  and  this  was 
not  pleasing  information  in  that  it  confirmed  to  the  Loyalists,  who 
had  settled  at  St.  Andrews  and  were  still  known  by  them  as 
Tories,  the  location  from  which  they  had  been  warned. 

The  disappointment  lingered  long.  Ex-Governor  Israel  Wash- 
burn gave  expression  to  it  as  late  as  May  15,  1879,  in  an  extended 
paper  on  The  Northeastern  Boundary  read  before  the  Maine  His- 
torical Society,  and  subsequently  printed  by  the  society.  The 
Magaguadavic,  he  said,  should  have  been  made  the  boundary  and 
not  the  Schoodic;  and  he  adds:  “But  our  bad  fortune  did  not  stop 
here.  The  commissioners,  having  agreed  upon  the  river,  decided 
that  its  source  was  in  what  is  now  known  as  Round  Lake,  the 
same,  I suppose,  that  is  laid  down  as  North  Lake  on  Greenleaf’s 
map  of  1815;  but  when  they  came  to  make  their  report,  for  rea- 
sons which  I have  never  been  able  to  learn,  they  substituted 
Chiputneticook  for  Round  Lake,  and  thereby  gave  to  New  Bruns- 
wick a tract  of  country  of  the  average  breadth  of  ten  miles,  and 
one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  long;  and  more  by  so  much  than  was 
actually  required  even  upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  Schoodic  was 

the  true  St.  Croix The  British  appear  to  have  had  their 

own  way  before  the  commissioners.  When  they  asked  for  Round 
Lake,  they  received  it;  and  when  they  wanted  Chiputneticook 
they  had  no  difficulty  in  getting  it.”  ^ 

'^Mahie  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Second  Series,  VIII,  15,  107. 

5 


66 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Another  ex-governor  of  Maine,  General  Joshua  L,.  Chamber- 
lain,  writing  twenty-five  years  later  than  ex-Governor  Washburn, 
found  new  sources  of  information  open  to  him,  and  in  an  address 
June  25,  1904,  at  St.  Croix  Island,  on  the  three  hundredth  anni- 
versary of  the  landing  upon  that  island  of  de  Monts  and  his  fellow 
colonists,  he  affirmed  the  justice  of  the  declaration  of  the  St.  Croix 
commission.  “One  singular  dignity,”  he  said,  “this  island  settle- 
ment of  de  Monts  has  come  to  hold.  After  long  lost  identity  and 
earnest  searching  these  ruins  were  discovered  and  admitted  to  be 
the  proper  mark  for  the  boundary  line  between  two  great  nations, 
England  and  the  United  States  of  America.  Such  value  had  this 
broken  enterprise  in  the  minds  of  men  and  councils  of  nations. 
Without  the  identifying  of  this  spot  the  language  of  treaties  was 
in  vain,  and  bounds  of  nationalities  in  confusion.”  ^ 

But  the  Loyalists  of  St.  Andrews  had  their  disappointments,  as 
well  as  the  people  in  the  District  of  Maine.  One  was  occasioned 
by  the  failure  of  their  earlier  expectations  that  the  close  of  the 
Revolutionary  War  would  leave  them  in  possession  of  the  homes 
they  had  made  for  themselves  at  Penobscot  under  British  protec- 
tion. Now,  they  had  an  added  disappointment  in  the  failure  of 
their  later  contention  that  the  Schoodic,  in  its  western  branch, 
was  the  St.  Croix  River  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  commission 
declaring  for  the  northern  branch  known  as  the  Chiputneticook. 
In  this,  these  disappointed  Loyalists  had  the  sympathy  of  the  peo- 
ple in  the  provinces,  and  of  early  British  writers,  who  insisted 
that  the  boundary  should  have  followed  the  western  branch  of 
the  Schoodic,  as  early  American  writers  insisted  that  the  Maga- 
guadavic  should  have  been  made  the  boundary.  Careful  investi- 
gators in  recent  years,  however,  having  the  advantage  of  looking 
at  the  boundary  controversy  in  the  retrospect,  and  especially  with 
reference  to  new  and  valuable  sources  of  information  only  recently 
brought  to  light,  find  as  much  satisfaction  in  the  award  of  the 
St.  Croix  commission  as  Governor  Chamberlain  and  other  recent 
American  writers.  Especially  should  mention  be  made  of  the 

^Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  Third  Series,  II,  106. 


THE  ST.  CROIX  COMMISSION. 


67 


contributions  to  this  discussion  by  Professor  William  F.  Ganong-, 
of  Smith  College,  Massachusetts.  A native  of  New  Brunswick, 
he  is  not  only  familiar  with  the  northeastern  boundary  territory, 
but  he  has  given  much  attention  to  the  boundary  controversy. 
In  the  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,^  in  a very  schol- 
arly and  impartial  consideration  of  this  controversy,  he  has  pre- 
sented clearly  and  forcefully  the  results  that  his  studies  have 
reached.  In  summing  up  the  facts  with  reference  to  the  true  St. 
Croix  as  determined  by  the  St.  Croix  commission,  he  says:  “The 
Chiputneticook  is  without  question  the  main  river,  and  the  one 
most  natural  to  be  selected  as  a boundary  of  the  kind  desired  in 
this  region.  I believe,  therefore,  that  the  British  agent  was  not 
justified  upon  historical  or  topographical  grounds  in  claiming  the 
western  branch,  though  he  supposed  he  was,  and,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  advocate,  he  was.  That  the  Chiputneticook  was 
chosen,  even  though  as  a compromise  and  not  upon  logical  grounds 
(that  is,  as  it  were,  by  luck),  seems  to  me  most  fortunate,  and 
both  nations  should  agree  that  this  question  at  least  was  settled 
happily.”  ^ 

^ Second  Series,  Vol.  VII,  Section  II,  1901-1902.  The  paper  is  entitled  A 
Monograph  of  the  Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  the  Province  of  New 
Brunswick. 

^Ib.,  261.  Of  great  interest  is  Prof.  Ganong’s  cartographical  study  (pp. 
265-267),  showing  that  the  river  St.  Croix  of  Mitchell’s  map  is  the  present 
river  of  that  name  and  not  the  Magaguadavic. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Boundary  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay. 


HE  declaration  of  the  St.  Croix  commission  had  reference 
only  to  the  true  St.  Croix  River,  including  its  mouth  and 
source.  But  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  into  which  the  St. 
Croix  River  empties,  there  are  islands  as  to  whose  nation- 
ality important  differences  early  developed,  which  were  as  irritat- 
ing and  embittering  in  the  boundary  territory  as  were  those  that 
had  reference  to  the  river  St.  Croix.  In  an  allusion  to  these 
differences  President  Adams,  announcing^  the  settlement  of  the 
St.  Croix  controversy,  said:  “A  subordinate  question,  however, 
it  has  been  suggested,  still  remains  to  be  determined.  Between 
the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix,  as  now  settled,  and  what  is  usually 
called  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  lie  a number  of  valuable  islands.  The 
commissioners  have  not  continued  the  boundary  line  through  any 
channel  of  these  islands,  and  unless  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  be 
a part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  this  further  adjustment  of  boundary 
will  be  necessary.  But  it  is  apprehended  that  this  will  not  be 
a matter  of  any  difficulty.”  That  the  apprehension  was  with- 
out adequate  support,  the  history  of  the  boundary  controversy 
shows. 

The  second  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  made  the  boundaries 
of  the  United  States  to  comprehend  “all  islands  within  twenty 
leagues  of  any  part  of  the  shores  of  the  United  States,  and  lying 
between  lines  to  be  drawn  due  east”  from  the  middle  of  the  mouth 
of  the  river  St.  Croix  “in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,”  and  from  the  mid- 
dle of  the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Mary’s  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
“excepting  such  islands  as  now  are,  or  heretofore  have  been. 


^Annual  Message,  December  8,  1798,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presi- 
dents, I,  274. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


69 


within  the  limits  of  the  said  province  of  Nova  Scotia.”^  Why 
the  St.  Croix  commissioners  made  no  attempt  to  settle  the  con- 
troversy with  reference  to  the  Passamaquoddy  islands  is  explained 
by  Judge  Sullivan,  the  American  agent,  under  the  provisions  of 
the  St.  Croix  commission:  “The  agent  of  the  United  States  urged 
the  commissioners  to  settle  the  boundary  through  that  bay  to  the 
sea;  because  the  treaty  expressly  recognized  the  mouth  of  the 
river  as  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  which  is  a limb  of  the  ocean,  and 
the  other  bay  united  with  it  might  be  considered  as  the  river’s 
mouth;  but  they  declined  it  on  an  idea  that  their  commission 
extended  no  further  than  to  an  authority  to  find  the  mouth  and 
source  of  the  river,  and  that,  let  whichever  would  be  the  river,  it 
had  its  mouth  three  leagues  from  the  sea,  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay; 
they,  therefore,  limited  their  decision,  on  its  southerly  line,  to  a 
point  between  St.  Andrews  and  the  shore  of  the  United  States.”^ 

Judge  Benson,  in  his  report  to  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  suggested  a boundary  line  with  reference  to  the  Passa- 
maquoddy islands  which  he  described  in  these  words:  “Begin- 
ning in  the  middle  of  the  channel  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  at  its 
mouth;  thence  to  the  middle  of  the  channel  between  Point  Pleasant 
and  Deer  Island;  thence  through  the  middle  of  the  channel  between 
Deer  Island  on  the  east  and  north,  and  Moose  Island  and  Campo 
Bello  Island  on  the  west  and  south,  and  round  the  easterly  point 
of  Campo  Bello  Island  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy.”  Because  of  con- 
tinued complaints  concerning  British  assertion  of  jurisdiction  over 
the  Passamaquoddy  islands,  this  suggestion,  made  by  Judge  Ben- 
son, was  taken  up  by  Mr.  Madison,  secretary  of  state  for  the 
United  States,  who  in  a letter,  July  28,  1801,  to  Rufus  King,® 

^ Moore,  History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations,  45.  Farnham 
Papers,  I,  76. 

‘^American  State  Papers,  II,  586. 

®Born  in  Scarborough,  Maine,  in  1755,  Rufus  King  in  1788  removed  to 
New  York,  which  became  his  permanent  residence.  In  1789,  he  was  elected 
the  first  United  States  senator  from  that  state  and  was  re-elected  in  1795. 
Not  long  after,  having  decUned  the  office  of  secretary  of  state,  he  was  nomi- 
nated by  Washington  as  minister  plenipotentiary  to  Great  Britain,  and  in 


70 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


minister  of  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain,  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  St.  Croix  commissioners  left  undetermined  the 
nationality  of  the  Passamaquoddy  islands.  It  appears,  he  said, 
to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  two  nations,  in  the  peace  adjust- 
ments of  the  treaty  of  1783,  to  make  navigable  waters  where  they 
were  common  to  both  the  divisional  line,  the  boundary  running 
through  the  middle  of  their  channels.  Hence  if  one  of  the  pas- 
sages from  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  River  into  the  Bay  of 
Fundy  be  seldom  and  imperfectly  navigable,  and  the  other  con- 
stantly and  completely  so,  this  last  should  be  the  boundary.  On 
the  other  hand,  a literal  construction  of  the  treaty,  “as  far  as 
practicable,”  would  exclude  Great  Britain  from  both  passages; 
and  expressing  the  belief  that  a boundary  satisfactory  to  both 
nations  could  be  established,  he  made  use  of  Judge  Benson’s  sug- 
gestion in  almost  his  identical  words,  adding:  “These  ideas  are 
thrown  out  only  for  consideration.  I shall  probably  have  it  in 
my  power  shortly  to  transmit  you  a commission  to  settle  this 
point,  with  definite  instructions.  Meanwhile,  you  may  break  the 
business  to  the  British  ministry,  but  without  implicating  any  fixed 
mode  of  settlement.”  ^ 

June  8,  1802,  Mr.  Madison  sent  to  Mr.  King  a commission, 
conferring  upon  him  powers  for  the  adjustment,  by  proper  stipu- 
lations, of  such  matters  pertaining  to  the  boundary  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  as  remained  to  be  decided.  For 
information  with  reference  to  Passamaquoddy  Bay  contentions  he 
was  referred  to  observations  made  by  the  secretary  of  state  in  his 
letter  of  July  28,  1801.  His  attention  also  was  called  to  an 
inclosed  letter  from  Judge  Sullivan  to  the  secretary,  mention  of 
which  has  already  been  made.  In  this  last  letter  there  was  a ref- 

July,  1796,  he  sailed  with  his  family  for  England.  After  his  return  to  this 
country  in  1804,  he  was  again  elected  United  States  senator  from  New  York, 
his  fourth  term  expiring  in  1825.  Not  long  after,  he  was  persuaded  again  to 
accept  the  embassy  to  England;  but  failing  health  compelled  him  at  length 
to  relinquish  his  office,  and  returning  to  this  country,  he  died  at  his  home  in 
Jamaica,  Eong  Island,  April  29,  1827. 

'^American  State  Papers,  II,  585. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


71 


erence  to  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  which  included  in 
the  boundaries  of  the  United  States  “all  islands  within  twenty 

leagues  of  every  part  of  the  shores  of  the  United  States 

excepting  such  islands  as  now  are,  or  heretofore  have  been, 
within  the  limits  of  the  said  province  of  Nova  Scotia.”  Concern- 
ing this  exception.  Judge  Sullivan  in  his  letter  remarked: 

“The  ancient  charter  of  Nova  Scotia  to  Sir  William  Alexander, 
in  1638,  included  all  the  country  from  the  Kennebec  to  the  Bay 
of  Chaleur.  The  treaty  cannot  mean,  by  the  expression  ‘hereto- 
fore within  Nova  Scotia,’  all  the  islands  in  that  charter.  If  it 
mean  the  islands  which  were  within  a more  recent  description  of 
it,  where  the  boundary  westward  was  the  St.  Croix,  excluding 
the  territory  of  Acadia,  which  was  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Massachusetts  by  the  charter  of  that  province  in  1692  and  bounded 
on  that  river,  the  river  Schodiac  being  now  the  established  St. 
Croix,  there  can  be  no  question  in  regard  to  Massachusetts 
extending  to  the  channel  where  it  joins  that  river.  But  Moose 

Island lies  two  leagues  below  what  the  Commissioners 

made  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix,  and  very  near  the  American 
shore.  This  was  never  granted  by  the  crown  of  England,  or  by 
the  government  of  Nova  Scotia,  before  the  treaty  of  peace;  nor 
was  there  ever  any  occupancy  of  it  by  subjects  acknowledging  the 
authority  of  Nova  Scotia;  nor  did  that  province  ever  attempt  to 
exercise  authority  there.  Long  before  the  Revolutionary  War  it 
was  in  the  occupancy  of  people  of,  and  from,  the  late  province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay.”  ^ 

The  British  representative  in  this  convention  for  the  settlement 
of  the  differences  between  the  two  countries  with  reference  to  the 
boundary  was  Eord  Hawkesbury,  the  principal  secretary  of  state 
for  foreign  affairs.  February  28,  1803,  Mr.  King,  in  a letter  to 
Mr.  Madison,  reporting  progress  with  reference  to  the  Passama- 
quoddy  line,  made  mention  of  an  interview  with  Colonel  Barclay, 
one  of  the  St.  Croix  commissioners,  then  on  a visit  to  England, 
probably  in  the  interest  of  boundary  matters,  who  thought  it 

'^American  State  Papers^  II,  586. 


72 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


would  be  improper  to  cede  Campo  Bello  to  the  United  States, 
unless  such  action  should  be  desired  by  its  inhabitants.  No 
objection  had  been  made  to  the  American  claim  of  Moose  Island. 
Attention  had  been  paid  to  the  line  from  the  northwest  corner  of 
Nova  Scotia  and  the  head  of  the  Connecticut  River.  Measures 
also  were  to  be  taken  for  ascertaining  and  determining  the  north- 
west point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  and  the  source  of  the  Missis- 
sippi River;  and  Mr.  King  could  see  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a 
speedy  agreement  except  that  of  getting  Lord  Hawkesbury  “to 
bestow  upon  the  subject  time  to  understand  it.”  Lord  Hawkes- 
bury’s  attention  seems  to  have  been  secured,  and  convention 
articles  were  signed  May  12,  1803.^  The  first  article,  the  one 
referring  to  the  Passamaquoddy  islands,  was  as  follows; 

“The  line  hereinafter  described  shall  and  hereby  is  declared  to  be  the 
boundary  between  the  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy; 
that  is  to  say:  a line  beginning  in  the  middle  of  the  channel  of  the  river  St. 
Croix,  at  its  mouth,  as  the  same  has  been  ascertained  by  the  commission- 
ers appointed  for  that  purpose;  thence  through  the  middle  of  the  channel 
between  Deer  Island  on  the  east  and  north,  and  Moose  Island,  and  Campo 
Bello  Island  on  the  west  and  south,  and  round  the  eastern  point  of  Campo  Bello 
Island  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy;  and  the  islands  and  waters  northward  and  east- 
ward of  the  said  boundary,  together  with  the  islands  of  Campo  Bello,  situated 
to  the  southward  thereof,  are  hereby  declared  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction 
and  part  of  his  Majesty’s  province  of  New  Brunswick;  and  the  islands  and 
waters  southward  and  westward  of  the  said  boundary,  except  only  the  island 
of  Campo  Bello,  are  hereby  declared  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction  and  part  of 
Massachusetts,  one  of  the  said  United  States.’’ ^ 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  the  boundary  line  for  Passamaquoddy 
Bay  suggested  by  Judge  Benson,  rather  than  that  suggested  by 
Colonel  Barclay — a line  evidently  determined  by  the  provision  in 
the  treaty  of  1783,  which  expressly  gave  to  Great  Britain  the 

1 Colonel  Barclay,  in  Uondon  in  1802  and  1803,  suggested  to  Uord  Hawkes- 
bury that  in  his  opinion  Moose  Island  should  be  granted  to  the  United  States, 
as  that  government  had  possessed  it  since  1783;  and  at  Lord  Hawksbury’s 
suggestion  he  conferred  with  Mr.  King,  who  finally  agreed  to  accept  Moose 
Island  in  full  for  all  claims  for  islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  Correspond- 
ence of  Thomas  Barclay,  280,  281. 

"^American  State  Papers,  II,  584. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


73 


islands  that  then  were,  or  had  been,  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
Nova  Scotia.  Campo  Bello,  which  geographically  should  belong 
to  the  United  States,  was  granted  by  Nova  Scotia  to  William 
Owen  in  1767,  and,  by  a law  of  that  province,  courts  of  justice 
were  established  there  in  1770.^  It  was  accordingly  included  in 
British  territory,  as  also  was  Deer  Island,  granted  in  1767;  while 
Moose,  Dudley  and  Frederick  Islands,  in  close  proximity  to  Mas- 
sachusetts territory,  were  regarded  as  within  the  territory  of 
the  United  States.  This  action  was  laid  before  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  October  24,  1803.  To  it  the  Senate,  February  9, 
1804,  gave  its  assent  on  condition  that  the  fifth  article  of  the  con- 
vention, relating  to  the  northwest  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
and  the  source  of  the  Mississippi  River,  should  be  expunged. 
The  British  government  not  acceding  to  this  condition,  the  ratifi- 
cations of  the  respective  governments  were  not  exchanged  and  the 
convention  failed.^ 

Another  attempt  to  arrange  the  boundary  line  in  Passama- 
quoddy  Bay  was  made  in  1807.  In  these  negotiations,  Mr. 
Monroe,  the  American  minister  to  England,  had  the  assistance  of 
Mr.  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  who  was  in  England  at  the 
time  as  a special  envoy  with  reference  to  the  settlement  of  inter- 
national differences.  These  efforts  are  mentioned  in  a communi- 
cation addressed  by  Mr.  Pinkney  to  Mr.  Madison,  April  25,  1807. 

“The  first  article  in  our  plan defining  the  connecting 

line  between  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  (as  heretofore  settled  by 
commissioners)  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  was  copied  from  the  con- 
vention of  Mr.  King  and  Lord  Hawkesbury  and,  adopting  the 
ship  channel  between  Deer  Island  and  Campo  Bello  Island,  first 
included  and  then  excepted  the  latter.”  The  British  commis- 
sioners alleged  that  this  article  accomplished  its  object  by  an 
useless  inconsistency,  in  that  it  gave  a line  of  property  and  juris- 
diction beyond  its  own  views,  merely  to  furnish  occasion  for  an 

1 Kilby,  Eastport  and  Passamaquoddy , 129.  Ganong,  Transactions  of  the 
Royal  Society  of  Canada,  1901-1902,  279. 

American  State  Papers , II,  584,  591. 


74 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


exception  of  almost  equal  importance  with  the  whole  residue  of 
the  subject.  Moreover,  the  navigation  of  the  east  passage  being 
secured  to  the  United  States  by  a precise  provision,  the  whole 
effect  of  the  first  article  of  the  convention  of  1803  would  be  pro- 
duced at  once  by  running  the  line  along  the  middle  of  the  west 
passage.  Accordingly,  the  commissioners  proposed  an  article 
framed  upon  that  principle.  “We  do  not  perceive,”  they  said, 
“that  in  substance  this  article  is  different  from  the  other,  while  it 
is  more  simple  and  intelligible  in  its  plan.  Even  if  the  commence- 
ment of  one  of  the  parallel  east  lines,  within  which,  by  the  treaty 
of  peace,  the  United  States  are  entitled  to  all  islands  within  twenty 
leagues  of  any  part  of  our  shores  (not  within  the  limits  of  Nova 
Scotia)  should  be  admitted  to  depend  upon  the  channel  through 
which  our  line  from  the  St.  Croix  is  conducted  to  the  Bay  of 
Fundy,  it  would  probably  be  indifferent  to  the  United  States, 
whether  the  east  or  west  channel  were  adopted.  Grand  Manan 
seems  to  be  considerably  southward  of  an  east  line  drawn  even 
from  West  Quoddy  Head,  and  we  know  of  no  other  island,  taking 
into  consideration  the  exception  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  to  the  title 
of  which  the  commencement  of  that  line  can  now  be  important.”  ^ 
The  efforts  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  proved  unavailing 
on  account  of  the  failure  of  other  negotiations,  in  which  the 
attempt  to  establish  the  boundary  was  only  a part.  Unhappily, 
too,  the  relations  between  the  two  countries  were  now  becoming 
more  and  more  strained  because  of  Great  Britain’s  attitude  with 
reference  to  neutrals.  In  the  Barclay  correspondence  there  is  a 
letter  marked  “private,”  written  by  Judge  Benson  October  28, 
1808,  to  Colonel  Thomas  Barclay,  which  refers  to  a confidential 
conversation  between  the  two  in  New  York  a few  days  before,  in 
which  the  subject  of  the  conversation  was  a purpose  on  the  part 
of  the  British  government  to  take  possession  of  Moose  Island. 
Because  of  his  intimate  private  relations  with  Mr.  Benson,  Colonel 
Barclay,  in  this  interview,  sought  to  obtain  the  judge’s  opinion 
with  reference  to  such  a movement.  In  this  he  succeeded,  the 

'^American  State  Papers,  III,  162. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


75 


judge  asserting  his  unqualified  conviction  that  the  British  govern- 
ment could  never  justify  an  attempt  to  take  possession  of  Moose 
Island  either  on  the  ground  of  better  title,  or  as  not  within  the 
boundary  of  any  of  the  grants  under  which  territory  there  had 
been  claimed,  and  so  was  vacant;  “for  in  the  latter  case  the 
American  government  would  be  entitled  to  it  by  right  of  prior 
occupancy,  the  fact  I presume  being,  that  from  the  beginning, 
and  certainly  since  the  decision  of  the  commissioners  in  1798, 
actual  jurisdiction  has  been  exercised  over  the  island  as  apper- 
taining to  Massachusetts.”^ 

Apparently  Colonel  Barclay  informed  Judge  Benson  concerning 
the  use  he  purposed  to  make  of  this  expression  of  his  opinion, 
for  Mr.  Benson  closed  his  letter  with  these  words;  “You  may 
communicate  this  letter  as  you  may  think  proper,  trusting  that 
my  motives  to  it  will  not  be  misconstrued.”  The  information 
thus  received  w'as  at  once  transmitted  to  the  British  minister  in 
Washington,  from  whom  Colonel  Barclay,  as  British  consul  gen- 
eral in  New  York,  had  received  confidential  communications 
because  of  the  refusal  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
relinquish  its  possession  of  Moose  Island.  In  this  letter,  after  an 
admission  that  he  had  been  “led  into  an  error”  by  giving  the 
treaty  of  1783  too  narrow  a construction,  and  without  any  men- 
tion of  his  interview  with  Judge  Benson,  Colonel  Barclay  wrote: 
“it  appears  to  me  that  his  Majesty  cannot  justify  taking  posses- 
sion of  Moose  Island,”  and  he  repeated  the  argument  that  Judge 
Benson  had  used  in  his  letter,  adding:  “l  have  in  a former  let- 
ter to  you  observed  that  I did  not  think  Moose  Island  worth 
five  hundred  guineas  to  an  individual.  I consider  it  of  no  conse- 
quence to  his  Majesty  for  fortifications.  Campo  Bello,  an  adjacent 
and  much  larger  island,  is  better  adapted  either  for  defense  or 
annoyance.”  ^ 

Evidently,  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  Colonel  Barclay, 
Great  Britain’s  purpose  to  take  possession  of  Moose  Island  (known 

1 Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  285. 

Ub.,  286-288. 


76 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


as  Eastport  after  incorporation  February  24,  1798)  was  held  in 
abeyance  until  near  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812.  Early  in  that 
war,  by  order  of  Governor  Strong  of  Massachusetts,  a fort  at  East- 
port,  known  as  Fort  Sullivan,  was  occupied  by  two  companies 
of  militia  of  the  district,  one  under  the  command  of  Captain 
Joshua  Chamberlain,  of  Orrington  (grandfather  of  Major  Gen- 
eral Joshua  E.  Chamberlain),  and  the  other  under  the  command 
of  Captain  Thomas  George,  of  Brewer.  Later,  United  States 
troops  were  brought  to  Eastport  and  added  to  the  militia  force. 
July  11,  1814,  a large  British  fleet  moved  in  toward  the  town  by 
the  eastern  passage,  landed  a large  military  force  and  compelled 
the  surrender  of  the  fort  and  town,  the  commanding  officer  of  the 
expedition  stating  that  the  object  of  the  British  government  was 
to  “obtain  possession  of  the  islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay.”  It 
was  soon  discovered,  however,  that  this  movement  was  only  a part 
of  a larger  movement  for  the  re-occupation  of  the  country  between 
the  St.  Croix  and  Penobscot  Rivers,  in  accordance  with  which, 
September  1st,  a more  formidable  British  naval  and  military  force 
took  possession  of  Castine  and  ravaged  the  country  as  far  north 
as  Bangor,  Sir  John  Sherbrooke,  in  command  of  the  force,  assur- 
ing the  people  in  the  Penobscot  country  that  if  they  surrendered 
their  arms  and  dwelt  peacefully  they  would  have  protection.  On 
September  20th,  having  returned  to  Halifax,  Sir  John  issued  a 
proclamation  for  establishing  a provincial  government  over  the 
country  between  the  St.  Croix  and  the  Penobscot  Rivers,  includ- 
ing all  the  islands  on  the  coast,  and  Major  General  Gosselin,  at 
Castine,  was  made  governor  of  the  new  province. 

A clearer  insight  into  this  movement,  which  took  place  while 
peace  negotiations^  were  in  progress  at  Ghent,  is  afforded  by  a 

^As  early  as  May  29,  1813,  President  Madison  nominated  Albert  Gallatin, 
John  Quincy  Adams  and  James  A.  Bayard  as  envoys  extraordinary  and  minis- 
ters plenipotentiary  to  negotiate  and  sign  a treaty  of  peace  and  commerce 
with  Great  Britain  under  the  mediation  of  the  emperor  of  Russia  (^Papers  and 
Messages  of  the  Presidents,  X,  46),  and  the  nomination  was  confirmed.  The 
British  negotiators  were  Lord  Gambier,  Henry  Goulburn  and  Williams 
Adams. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


77 


letter  addressed  by  the  Duke  of  Wellington  to  the  British  ministry 
November  9,  1814.  The  duke  was  then  in  Paris  as  the  Brisish 
ambassador,  wearing  the  honors  of  his  recent  victories  in  Spain. 
Matters  on  this  side  of  the  sea  were  not  as  satisfactory  as  the 
British  ministry  desired,  and  having  sent  some  of  the  duke’s 
favorite  troops  to  this  country  they  now  proposed  that  he  should 
follow  them  and  take  command  of  the  British  forces  in  the  United 
States.  In  this  letter  to  the  ministry,  stating  his  objections  to 
this  proposal,  the  duke  exhibited  a clear  understanding  of  the 
ministry’s  designs  in  connection  with  this  movement  under  Sir 
John  Sherbrooke,  and  he  expressed  his  views  concerning  it  in  very 
plain  words.  “l  confess,”  he  wrote,  “that  I think  you  have  no 
right  from  the  state  of  the  war  to  demand  any  concession  of  terri- 
tory from  America.”  Reminding  the  ministers  that  they  had  not 
been  able  to  carry  the  war  into  United  States  territory  and  had 
not  even  cleared  their  own  territory  of  the  enemy  on  the  point  of 
attack,  he  added,  “You  cannot,  then,  on  any  principle  of  equality 
in  negotiation  claim  a cession  of  territory,  excepting  in  exchange 
for  other  advantages  which  you  have  in  your  power.  I put  out  of 
the  question  the  possession  taken  by  Sir  John  Sherbrooke  between 
the  Penobscot  and  Passamaquoddy  Bay.  It  is  evidently  only  tem- 
porary, and  till  a larger  force  will  drive  away  the  few  companies 
he  has  left  there;  and  an  officer  might  as  well  claim  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  ground  on  which  his  piquets  stand,  or  over  which 
his  patrols  pass.  Then,  if  this  reasoning  be  true,  why  stipulate 
for  the  uti  possidetis  f You  can  get  no  territory;  indeed  the  state 
of  your  military  operations,  however  creditable,  does  not  entitle 
you  to  demand  any;  and  you  only  afford  the  Americans  a popular 
and  creditable  ground  which,  I believe,  their  government  are 
looking  for;  not  to  break  off  the  negotiations,  but  to  avoid  to 
make  peace.  If  you  had  territory,  as  I hope  you  soon  will  have 
New  Orleans,  I should  prefer  to  insist  upon  the  cession  of  that 
province  as  a separate  article  than  upon  the  uti  possidetis  as  a 


78 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


principle  of  negotiation.  ” ^ The  ministry  accepted  the  straight, 
soldier-like  advice  thus  proffered,  and  during  the  peace  negotia- 
tions at  Ghent  all  thought  of  added  conversation  about  the  cession 
of  territory  in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  as  a result  of  the  war,  seems 
to  have  been  abandoned. 

Although  the  treaty  of  peace  concluded  by  the  two  countries  at 
Ghent  followed,  December  24,  1814,  and  Castine  was  evacuated 
by  the  British  April  25,  1815,  Eastport  remained  under  the  con- 
trol of  Great  Britain  until  June  30,  1818,  it  being  stated  in  the 
treaty  that  islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay  and  Grand  Manan, 
claimed  by  both  nations,  should  remain  in  the  possession  of  the 
party  holding  them  at  the  time  of  the  ratifications  of  the  treaty. 
The  provision  in  the  treaty  for  a settlement  with  reference  to  the 
Passamaquoddy  islands  and  Grand  Manan  stipulated  that  the 
claims  thereto  should  be  referred  to  two  commissioners,  one  to  be 
appointed  by  the  king  of  Great  Britain  and  one  by  the  president 
of  the  United  States,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  If  the  two 
commissioners  should  agree  in  their  decision,  both  parties  were 
to  consider  such  decision  as  final,  their  report  or  reports  were  to 
be  referred  “to  some  friendly  sovereign  or  state  to  be  then  named 

for  that  purpose and  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the 

Government  of  the  United  States  engage  to  consider  the  decision 
of  such  friendly  sovereign  or  State  to  be  final  and  conclusive  on 
all  the  matters  so  referred.”  ^ 

Under  this  article,  the  British  government,  September  4,  1815, 
appointed  as  its  commissioner,  Thomas  Barclay,  who  had  served 
in  the  same  position  in  the  settlement  of  the  controversy  with  ref- 
erence to  the  St.  Croix  River.  On  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
President  Madison,  January  16,  1816,  appointed  John  Holmes,  of 

^ Lodge,  One  Hundred  Years  of  Peace,  27-31.  The  much  desired  military 
successes  did  not  follow.  Wellington’s  favorite  troops,  that  had  been  sent 
to  the  United  States  in  the  preceding  summer,  were  badly  beaten  at  New 
Orleans  by  General  Jackson,  and  the  place  was  not  captured. 

2 Moore,  Inter?mtional  Arbitrations,  I,  47,  48.  The  treaty  was  ratified  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  February  17,  1815. 


John  Holmes 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  P ASSAM AOUODDY  BAY. 


79 


Alfred,  the  seat  of  York  County,  Maine,  then  a part  of  Massa- 
chusetts.^ 

In  sending-  to  Colonel  Barclay  his  commission.  Lord  Castle- 
reagh,  in  a letter  dated  Foreign  Office,  September  4,  1815,  called 
attention  to  the  t-wo  distinct  questions  at  issue  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  representatives  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
as  presented  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent. 
With  regard  to  the  first  question,  whether  the  islands  in  the  Bay 
of  Passamaquoddy  and  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy  belong  of  right  to  the 
United  States  or  to  Great  Britain,  Colonel  Barclay  was  instructed 
to  keep  in  mind  that  his  Majesty’s  right  to  those  islands  is  sup- 
posed to  be  founded  on  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
which  excepted  “such  islands  as  now  are  or  heretofore  have  been 
within  the  limits  of  Nova  Scotia.”  That  the  islands  in  question 
come  within  the  limits  of  that  province  would  be  proved  not  only 
from  the  jurisdiction  which  the  government  of  Nova  Scotia  was 
in  the  habit  of  exercising  over  the  inhabitants  down  to  1783,  but 
especially  from  the  fact  that  the  original  grant  of  the  province  by 
King  James  to  Sir  William  Alexander  in  1621  included  within  the 
seacoasts  mentioned  all  islands  lying  near  or  within  six  leagues  of 
any  part  of  said  coasts;  and  he  added  that  Colonel  Barclay,  refer- 
ring to  the  proceedings  of  the  St.  Croix  commission  on  which  he 
had  served  as  a commissioner,  would  see  that  the  point  now  at 
issue  between  the  two  countries  was  “in  some  degree  decided 
then”  from  the  fact  that  the  objection  made  to  that  decision  by 
the  American  agent  was  that  it  gave  to  Great  Britain  the  posses- 
sion of  the  very  islands  now  under  dispute,  he  on  that  ground 

^Mr.  Holmes  was  born  in  Kingston,  Mass.,  in  March,  1773.  After  gradu- 
ating at  Brown  University  in  1796,  he  studied  law,  and  having  been  admitted 
to  the  bar  in  1799,  he  entered  upon  the  practice  of  his  profession  at  Alfred,  in 
the  District  of  Maine.  He  was  a member  of  the  General  Court  of  Massachu- 
setts in  1812,  and  in  1813  he  was  elected  a member  of  the  Senate,  serving 
until  1817.  Then  he  was  elected  a member  of  Cong;ress,  serving  until  Maine 
became  a state  in  1820.  He  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the 
Maine  Constitutional  Convention  in  1819,  and  was  a member  of  the  United 
States  Senate  from  Maine,  1820-1827,  1829-1833;  also  a member  of  the  Maine 


80  MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 

arguing,  “though  ineffectually,  the  impropriety  of  the  decision 
itself.”  ^ 

For  some  reason  not  mentioned.  Colonel  Barclay  did  not  receive 
Lord  Castlereagh’s  communication,  and  the  inclosed  commission, 
until  August  7,  1816.  Three  days  later,  in  his  acknowledgment 
of  the  correctness  of  the  above  statement  with  reference  to  the 
Passamaquoddy  islands  and  the  principles  on  which  his  Majesty’s 
claims  to  those  islands  were  founded,  he  added:  “l  am  apprehen- 
sive it  will  be  difficult  for  his  Majesty’s  agent  to  support  with 
equal  evidence  his  Majesty’s  claim  to  the  island  of  Grand  Manan 
in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  an  island  of  far  more  national  importance 
than  any  of  the  others.”  ^ 

Two  days  later  still,  August  12,  1816,  Colonel  Barclay,  in  a 
letter  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  stated  that  with  reference  to  Grand 
Manan  it  was  necessary  “to  ascertain  and  establish  the  most 
extensive  westerly  bounds  at  any  time  heretofore  prescribed  to 
the  province  of  Nova  Scotia.”  The  most  ancient  and  formal 
description  of  those  bounds,  he  said,  was  to  be  found  in  the  grant 
to  Sir  William  Alexander.  These  bounds  he  had  already  men- 
tioned. But  they  had  been  variously  described  since  the  original 
grant  was  made,  and  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  Colonel 
Barclay  called  attention  to  an  alteration  in  the  ancient  boundaries 
of  the  province  that  appeared  in  the  commission  given  in  1763  to 
Montague  Wilmot  as  governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  in  which  the  western 
boundary  of  the  province  is  thus  described:  “and  to  the  westward, 
although  our  said  province  hath  anciently  extended,  and  doth  of 
right  extend,  as  far  as  the  river  Pentagoet  or  Penobscot,  it  shall 
be  bounded  by  a line  drawn  from  Cape  Sable  across  the  entrance 
of  the  Bay  of  Fundy  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix.”  Con- 
cerning this  alteration.  Colonel  Barclay  remarked:  “it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  his  Majesty  in  council  at  the  period  of  altering  the 

House  of  Representatives,  1828,  1829,  1835-1838.  He  died  in  Portland,  July 
7,  1843,  but  was  buried  in  Alfred. 

^ Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  iCl , 368. 

2lb.,  370,  371. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


81 


western  bounds  of  Nova  Scotia  had  before  him  some  legal  docu- 
ments by  which  the  original  bounds  of  Nova  Scotia,  to  which  the 
order  refers,  had  been  established,  to  wit  westward  to  the  river 

Penobscot It  is  therefore  of  moment  that  his  Majesty’s 

agent  should,  if  possible,  be  possessed  of  the  instrument  by  which 
the  western  limits  of  Nova  Scotia  were originally  estab- 

lished at  and  by  the  river  Penobscot.  Perhaps  upon  a search  in 
the  Council  books  and  papers  in  the  proper  oflSces  some  clue  may 
be  found  which  would  lead  to  the  discovery  of  this  important 
document.  As  there  is  no  trace  of  any  grant  having  been  made 
by  his  Majesty,  or  his  predecessors,  of  the  island  of  Grand  Manan 
other  than  that  to  Sir  William  x\lexander,  and  which  is  construct- 
ive and  in  some  measure  defective,  it  will  be  necessary  to  produce 
the  next  best  evidence  that  Grand  Manan  heretofore  was  within 
the  province  of  Nova  Scotia.” 

This,  Colonel  Barclay  thought,  could  be  done  by  showing  that, 
in  1773,  the  governor  and  council  of  the  province  granted  to  Tord 
William  Campbell  a reservation  of  the  island  until  the  royal  pleas- 
ure should  be  made  known;  that  action  furnishing  proof  that 
the  government  of  Nova  Scotia  then  considered  Grand  Manan 
as  belonging  to  that  province,  unless  it  were  shown  that  Massa- 
chusetts at  that  time,  or  previously,  laid  claim  to  the  island  and 
exercised  jurisdiction  over  it.  At  all  events,  as  the  reservation 
was  made  until  the  king’s  pleasure  was  known,  it  was  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  his  lordship  petitioned  his  Majesty  to  grant  the  island 
to  him  and  that  something  was  done  with  reference  to  it;  so  that 
if  the  petition  and  the  minutes  of  the  action  taken  could  be  found, 
they  would  greatly  strengthen  the  present  claim. ^ 

But  a difficulty  in  this  claim  had  evidently  been  found  in  a 
description  of  the  boundaries  of  Nova  Scotia  as  described  in  the 
king’s  commission  to  Lord  William  Campbell  in  1766,  and  to  Sir 
Frances  Legge  in  1773.  In  the  commission  of  the  latter,  as  gov- 
ernor, the  boundaries  are  described  as  follows:  “Bounded  on  the 

1 Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  372,  373. 


6 


82 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


westward  by  a line  drawn  from  Cape  Sable  across  the  entrance  of 
the  Bay  of  Fundy  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  by  the  said 
river  to  its  source  and  by  a line  drawn  due  north  from  thence  to 
the  southern  boundary  of  our  colony  of  Quebec,  to  the  northward 
by  the  same  boundary  as  far  as  the  western  extremity  of  the  Bay 
des  Chaleurs,  to  the  eastward  by  the  said  bay  and  the  Gulf  of  St. 
Lawrence  to  the  cape  or  promontory  called  Breton  in  the  island  of 
that  name,  includino:  that  island  and  all  the  other  islands  within 
six  leagues  of  the  coast  excepting  our  said  island  of  St.  John, 
which  we  have  thought  fit  to  erect  into  a separate  government, 
and  to  the  southward  by  the  Atlantic  Ocean  from  the  said  cape  to 
Cape  Sable  aforesaid,  including  the  islands  of  that  name  and  all 
other  islands  within  forty  leagues  of  the  coast.”  ^ 

The  same  boundaries  of  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  Colonel 
Barclay  had  learned,  were  given  in  Lord  William  Campbell’s  com- 
mission; and  as  from  these  sources  it  appeared  that  the  islands 
within  six  leagues  of  the  coast  are  confined  to  the  coast  on  the 
eastern  side  of  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  while  they  are  silent 
as  to  those  on  the  western  side,  he  had  reason  to  believe  that 
these  descriptions  would  be  made  to  support  the  claim  of  the 
United  States  to  Grand  Manan  and  the  islands  of  Passamaquoddy 
Bay.  Still,  he  had  an  answer  to  any  such  claim,  notwithstanding 
his  apprehensions  with  reference  to  Grand  Manan,  and  that  answer 
he  found  by  attributing  inattention  to  those  who  framed  the  com- 
missions. 

It  had  been  arranged  that  the  commissioners  should  meet  at 
St.  Andrews,  New  Brunswick,  September  16,  1816,  and  Colonel 
Barclay  proceeded  to  Portland,  Maine,  where  he  met  the  Ameri- 
can commissioner,  Hon.  John  Holmes,  and  the  American  agent, 
Mr.  James  T.  Austin,  who  had  received  his  appointment  April  11, 
1816.  On  account  of  adverse  winds  and  calms  the  members  of 
the  party  were  delayed  at  Portland  several  days,  and  they  did  not 
reach  St.  Andrews  until  September  22nd.  There  they  found 
awaiting  them  the  British  agent.  Ward  Chipman,  who  had  repre- 

1 Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  373,  374. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


83 


sented  Great  Britain  in  connection  with  the  St.  Croix  commission. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  commissioners,  on  September  23rd, 
Mr.  Chipman  and  Mr.  Austin  presented  their  credentials  as 
agents.  The  claim  of  the  United  States  was  stated  by  Mr.  Austin 
first,  as  follows:  “That  all  the  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passama- 
quoddy,  and  the  island  of  Grand  Manan  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy, 
are  each  and  every  of  them  within  twenty  leagues  of  the  shores  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  said  islands  are  severally  included 
within  the  boundary  lines  of  the  said  United  States  as  said  bound- 
ary lines  were  agreed  upon  and  settled  by  the  second  article  of 
the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  between  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America.  And  the  said  United  States  by  their 
said  agent  not  admitting  that  the  aforesaid  islands,  or  any  of 
them,  are  excepted  from  the  lines  including  the  territorial  limits 
of  the  United  States,  by  any  provision  in  any  article  of  the  treaty 
aforesaid,  the  said  agent  respectfully  moves  the  honorable  com- 
missioners to  decide,  and  by  a declaration,  under  their  hands  and 
seals,  to  declare  that  said  islands  do  severally  belong  to  the  United 
States  of  America.”  ^ 

In  presenting  the  British  claim,  Mr.  Chipman  referred  to  the 
provision  of  the  treaty  of  1783  that  gave  to  the  United  States  “all 
islands  within  twenty  leagues  of  any  part  of  the  shores  of  the 
United  States  and  lying  between  lines  to  be  drawn  due  east  from 
the  points  where  the  aforesaid  boundaries  between  Nova  Scotia 
on  the  one  part,  and  East  Florida  on  the  other,  shall  respectively 
touch  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  excepting  such 
islands  as  now  are,  or  heretofore  have  been  within  the  limits  of 
Nova  Scotia,”  and  also  to  the  second  article  of  the  treaty,  by 
which  “it  appears  to  be  clearly  intended”  that  no  part  of  the 
Province  of  Nova  Scotia  should  be  thereby  ceded  to  the  United 
States.  He  then  outlined  an  argument  to  show  that  the  several 
islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  and  the  island  of  Grand  Manan 

^Manuscript  Journal  of  the  Proceedhigs  of  the  Commission , library  of  the 
Maine  Historical  Society,  18,  19. 


84 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  belong  to  Great  Britain  in  conformity  with 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1783.^ 

After  certain  agreements  as  to  evidence  and  plans  of  rivers, 
Passamaquoddy  Bay  and  the  adjacent  coast  and  islands,  the  com- 
missioners adjourned  to  meet  in  Boston,  May  28,  1817.  At  that 
place,  and  on  the  day  appointed,  they  came  together;  but  on 
account  of  illness  and  adverse  winds  in  the  passage  from  St.  John 
Mr.  Chipman,  the  British  agent,  did  not  reach  Boston  until  June 
2nd.  “On  the  following  day  the  latter  presented  his  commission, 
secured  during  the  intermission.  June  4th,  the  American  agent 
commenced  his  argument,  continued  it  on  the  6th  and  concluded 
it  on  the  10th,  no  meeting  being  held  on  June  5th,  or  on  June  8th, 
which  was  Sunday.  Mr.  Chipman  commenced  and  concluded  his 
argument  on  June  11th.”  ^ 

Mr.  Austin,  the  agent  of  the  United  States,  in  presenting  his 
argument,  after  a description  of  the  islands  in  Passamaquoddy 
Bay  and  of  the  island  of  Grand  Manan,  contended  that  these 
islands  were  not  included  in  the  exception  contained  in  the  clause . 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  “excepting  such  islands  as  now  are,  or 
heretofore  have  been,  within  the  limits  of  Nova  Scotia,”  insisting 
that  these  islands  had  from  the  beginning  of  the  New  England 
settlements  been  a part  of  the  territory  then  belonging  to  Massa- 
chusetts, and  so  were  never  within  the  limits  of  the  Province  of 
Nova  Scotia.^  In  that  connection,  and  without  referring  at  any 
length  to  the  grant  made  by  King  James  in  1621  to  Sir  William 
Alexander  (which  the  agent  held  to  have  been  void  ab  initio, 
“derelict,  abandoned  and  lost”),*  he  called  attention  to  the  early. 
New  England  charters,  with  especial  reference  to  the  charter  of 
William  and  Mary  (1691),  by  which  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 

^Manuscript  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  oj  the  Commission,  library  of  the 
Maine  Historical  Society,  21-26. 

Mb.,  33-45. 

^Manuscript  Copy  of  the  Argument,  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society, 
Part  I,  36. 

Mb.,  Part  H,  309,  433. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  P ASSAM AOUODDY  BAY. 


85 


Bay,  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth,  the  Province  of  Maine,  the 
territory  called  Acadia  or  Nova  Scotia,  and  all  the  country  lying 
between  the  Province  of  Maine  and  Nova  Scotia,  were  united  and 
incorporated  into  one  provunce  as  the  Province  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  in  New  England,^  the  islands  of  Passamaquoddy  Bay  and 
the  island  of  Grand  Manan  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  coming  in  this 
way  into  the  possession  of  Massachusetts. 

Continuing  the  discussion,  he  maintained  that  the  Province  of 
Nova  Scotia  accordingly  ceased  at  that  time  to  have  any  independ- 
ent or  separate  existence,  and  the  whole  seaboard  and  interior,  to 
whatever  government  before  belonging,  became  one  province,  the 
Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay;  that  in  this  province  the  islands 
in  Passamaquoddy  Bay  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy  were  certainly 
included;  that  to  dispossess  the  government  and  province  of  any 
part  of  this  territory  required  an  explicit  renunciation  on  the  part 
of  Massachusetts,  either  expressed  or  necessarily  implied;  and 
that  there  had  been  no  action  by  Massachusetts  from  which  her 
relinquishment  of  sovereignty  over  the  islands  in  question  could 
justly  be  inferred.  Many  other  points  of  various  degrees  of 
importance  were  considered.  It  was  easily  discoverable  that  the 
agent  of  the  United  States  had  given  much  time  and  labor  to  the 
preparation  of  his  argument,  but  it  was  drawn  out  to  such  length 
as  to  be  more  than  suggestive  of  weariness  in  its  delivery. 

The  British  agent,  in  his  argument,  claimed  that  the  limits  of 
Nova  Scotia  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  1783  were  the  same  as 
those  designated  in  the  grant  to  Sir  William  Alexander,  and  found 
support  to  this  view  in  the  negotiations  in  1807  with  reference  to 
the  boundary,  which  recognized  the  limits  of  the  Province  of 
Nova  Scotia  designated  in  Sir  William  Alexander’s  charter.'^  He 
also  made  much  of  the  declaration  of  the  St.  Croix  commission  in 
establishing  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  River  at  Joe’s  Point,  and 
in  regarding  the  Passamaquoddy  Bay  as  a part  of  the  Bay  of 

'^Farnham  Papers,  II,  5,  6. 

'^Manuscript  Copy  of  the  Argument , library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Soci- 
ety, 45,  46. 


86 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Fundy.  Referring  to  the  unratified  convention  of  1803,  by 
which  Moose,  Dudley  and  Frederick  islands  were  to  be  relin- 
quished to  the  United  States,  “not  as  belonging  to  them  by  virtue 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  but  as  lying  to  the  westward  of  a new  line 
of  boundary  on  this  quarter  established  between  the  two  nations 
in  consequence  of  the  mistaken  idea  which  at  that  time  prevailed” 
be  held  ‘ ‘that  there  was  a chasm  in  the  boundary  by  reason  that 
the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  was  not  a part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy”; 
and  he  added:  “But  this  convention,  having  never  been  ratified, 
and  all  further  adjustment  of  boundary  in  this  quarter  having 
now  become  unnecessary  by  the  declaration  of  the  two  nations 
that  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  is  a part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the 
United  States  can  no  longer  claim  a right  of  passage  through  any 
channel  of  these  islands  to  the  mouth  of  the  River  of  St.  Croix  to 
the  eastward  of  any  of  them,  to  which  they  cannot  establish  a 
right  under  the  treatj^  of  1783.”  ^ 

On  the  following  day,  June  12th,  the  commissioners  gave  atten- 
tion to  business  matters  only,  and  on  June  13th,  in  order  that  the 
agents  might  have  time  in  which  to  prepare  their  replies  to  each 
other’s  arguments,  the  board  adjourned  until  September  25,  1817.^ 
An  adjournment  to  so  late  a date  was  not  pleasing  to  Mr.  Holmes, 
who  had  been  elected  a member  of  the  national  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives; and  he  wrote  a letter  to  Mr.  Rush,  the  acting  secretary 
of  state  at  Washington,  in  which  he  said:  “The  survey  taken 
under  the  treaty  of  1794,  having  been  admitted  in  this  case,  and 
all  the  evidence  necessary  being  produced,  it  was  hoped  that  the 
subject  would  not  have  been  delayed  so  long.  But  the  agents 
reluctantly  consented  to  so  early  a day  as  the  25th  of  September. 
This  placed  me  in  an  embarrassing  situation.  This  business  must 
be  finished  before  I take  my  seat  in  Congress.  I still  think,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  sufficient  time  to  come  to  some  result  before  the 
session  of  Congress.  Mr.  Austin  is  very  able,  and  has  been  very 

'^Manuscript  Copy  of  the  Argument  of  the  British  Agoit,  library  of  the 
Maine  Historical  Society,  70-74. 

’^Manuscript  fournal,  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  46,  47. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSAMAQUODDY  BAY. 


87 


industrious.  If  the  gentlemen  reply  to  each  other  in  September, 
and  should  require  a further  time  to  rejoin,  it  may  press  the  busi- 
ness into  the  winter.  I am  satisfied  that  all  that  will  be  necessary 
may  be  said  in  time  to  finish  before  the  session  of  Congress.  I 
wish  to  finish  if  possible,  so  as  not  to  disappoint  the  government 
or  my  constituents.  Did  I not  believe  that  justice  might  be  done 
the  subject  in  that  time,  I would  not  urge  the  agent  to  make  haste, 
let  the  consequence  be  what  it  might  to  myself.  But  I believe 
that  the  subject  is  not  attended  with  much  perplexity,  and  that  it 
might  be  as  well  understood  after  a month’s  further  examination 
as  in  ten  years.  What  is  the  probability  of  the  commissioners 
agreeing  to  anything  is  impossible  to  divine  at  present.  If  we  do 
agree,  the  sooner  the  people  on  the  frontiers  know  it,  the  better. 
If  we  do  not,  it  will  be  important  that  the  government  should  be 
soon  advised  of  it,  that  they  may  adopt  ulterior  measures.”  ^ 

The  board  reassembled  in  Boston,  September  25,  1818,  and 
meetings  were  held  on  successive  days,  excepting  Sunday,  until 
October  1st,  the  attention  of  the  commissioners  being  directed  by 
the  agents  of  the  two  countries  to  additional  arguments.  On 
October  2nd,  the  board  adjourned  until  October  8th,  probably  to 
give  the  commissioners  an  opportunity  for  added  conferences. 
When  the  commission  reconvened  the  agents  asked  for  an  adjourn- 
ment until  “some  early  day  in  the  ensuing  spring”  in  order  that 
they  might  have  an  opportunity  of  offering  such  additional  obser- 
vations as  might  seem  to  them  expedient.  Such  a request  Mr. 
Holmes  had  anticipated,  for  on  October  2nd,  the  day  of  the  recent 
adjournment,  he  wrote  to  John  Quincy  Ada.ms,  the  secretary  of 
state,  that  the  arguments  and  documents  in  the  case  already  made 
more  than  two  thousand  pages  folio.  He  saw  no  prospect  that 
the  commissioners  would  be  able  to  agree.  Colonel  Barclay  said 
he  had  heard  enough,  but  he  was  unwilling  to  take  the  responsi- 
bility of  refusing  to  give  the  agents  a further  hearing.  In  his 
anxiety  to  have  the  case  closed  before  Congress  should  assemble, 
Mr.  Holmes  asked,  “What  is  to  be  done?  All  the  evidence  is 

"^Senate  Documents,  Second  Session,  20th  Congress,  II,  97,  2,  3. 


88 


IIAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


received,  and  the  subject  has  been  literally  exhausted.  I have 
told  the  agents  that  being  satisfied  that  enough  has  been  said, 
and  that  further  delay  would  require  my  resignation,  I am  bound 
to  call  on  my  colleague  to  come  to  a decision;  and  in  case  he  is 
disposed  to  hear  the  agents  further,  after  he  has  expressly  stated 
that  he  has  heard  enough,  I shall  be  obliged  to  consider  him  as 
‘refusing,  declining,  or  omitting  to  act,’  and  that  I must  make  up 

a separate  report  to  that  effect unless  the  president  shall 

think  that  course  improper.”  ^ 

During  the  days  following  the  adjournment  on  October  2nd, 
the  commissioners  had  ample  time  before  October  8th  for  fre- 
quent conferences.  In  these  conferences  Mr.  Holmes  could  not 
have  failed  to  make  known  to  Colonel  Barclay  his  great  desire  to 
have  the  work  of  the  commission  closed  without  further  delay. 
He,  as  well  as  Colonel  Barclay,  had  heard  enough,  and  doubtless 
Mr.  Holmes  had  not  withheld  from  his  associate  what  he  had 
written  to  the  secretary  of  state  concerning  a separate  report 
unless  an  agreement  could  now  be  reached.  Colonel  Barclay  had 
no  desire  that  the  work  of  the  commission  should  end  in  that 
way.  He  thought  it  doubtful  “whether  another  commissioner 
would  possess  that  candor  and  discretion”  which  he  had  observed 
in  Mr.  Holmes.  He  was  ready,  therefore,  to  come  to  an  agree- 
ment with  him  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Holmes  was  willing  to  assent  to 
such  a declaration  as  that  contained  in  the  unratified  convention 
of  1803,  in  which  the  United  States  was  represented  by  Rufus 
King,  and  in  the  agreement  attempted  by  Messrs.  Monroe  and 
Pinkney  in  1807.  Although  that  declaration  was  not  so  favor- 
able to  the  United  States  as  Mr.  Holmes  thought  it  ought  to  be, 
yet  he  believed  it  better  than  one  declaring  disagreement,  which 
otherwise  would  be  the  result.  Instead  of  yielding  to  the  request 
of  the  agents  for  another  adjournment,  the  commissioners,  on 
October  8th,  expressed  the  opinion  that  as  the  agents  had  already 
‘ ‘done  honor  to  themselves  and  justice  to  their  respective  govern- 
ments,” they  saw  no  reason  for  added  argumentation. 

^ Se7iate  Documents,  Second  Session,  20th  Congress,  II,  97,  4. 


THE  BOUNDARY  IN  PASSABIAQUODDY  BAY. 


89 


Mr.  Holmes’  attitude  at  this  time  is  confirmed  in  a communica- 
tion addressed  by  Colonel  Barclay  to  Lord  Castlereagh  in  a report 
of  his  conferences  with  Mr.  Holmes  at  this  stage  of  the  proceed- 
ings. “l  assured  and  endeavored  to  convince  him,”  he  wrote, 

‘ ‘that  from  the  evidence  before  the  board  it  was  manifest  that  all 
islands  in  question  were  included  in  the  grant  to  Sir  William  Alex- 
ander, and  consequently  appertained  to  his  Majesty;  and  called 
on  him  to  unite  with  me  in  decision  to  that  effect.  This,  he  of 
course  declined,  remarking  that  such  a decision  would  deprive  the 
United  States  of  Moose  Island  and  the  two  adjoining  small  islands, 
named  Dudley  and  Frederick,  which  had  been  decided  to  them  by 
the  convention  or  treaty  in  1803,  and  by  the  supplementary  treaty 
of  1807,  neither  of  which  it  was  true  had  been  ratified  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  but  that  they  were  evidence  that  Great 
Britain  either  considered  these  islands  as  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  or  was  willing  to  acknowledge  them  as  such,  provided  the 
United  States  would  relinquish  claim  to  all  the  other  islands  in 
the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy.”  ^ He  added  that  although  he  was 
determined  not  to  execute  a decision  whereby  all  the  islands  in 
question  were  to  be  adjudged  to  belong  to  his  Majesty,  yet  he  was 
willing  to  come  to  a determination  which  should  comport  with 
the  principles  agreed  upon  by  Earl  Liverpool  (then  Lord  Hawkes- 
bury)  and  Mr.  King  in  1803,  and  by  Lord  Auckland  and  Mr. 
Monroe  and  Mr.  Pinkney  in  1807. 

A business  session  of  the  commission  was  held  on  October  11th, 
when  the  board  adjourned  to  meet  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
November  24,  1817.  On  that  day  the  commissioners,  having 
agreed  upon  the  matters  referred  to  them,  rendered  their  decision 
as  follows:  ^ 

‘‘By  Thomas  Barclay  and  John  Holmes,  Esquires,  Commissioners  appointed 
by  virtue  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace  and  amity  between  his 
Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America,  conducted  at  Ghent,  on 
the  twenty-fourth  day  of  December,  1814,  to  decide,  to  which  of  the  two  con- 

^ Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  391. 

Mamiscript  Journal  of  Commission,  library  of  the  Maine  Historical 
Society,  71-75. 


90 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


trading  parties  to  the  said  treaty  the  several  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passama- 
quoddy,  which  is  part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  and  the  island  of  Grand  Manan 
in  the  said  Bay  of  Fundy,  do  respectively  belong,  in  conformity  with  the  true 
intent  of  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  between  his  said 
Britannic  Majesty  and  the  aforesaid  United  States  of  America. 

“We,  the  said  Thomas  Barclay  and  John  Flolraes,  Commissioners  as  afore- 
said, having  been  duly  sworn  impartially  to  examine  and  decide  upon  the 
said  claims  according  to  such  evidence  as  should  be  laid  before  us  on  the  part 
of  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  respectively,  have  decided  and 
do  decide,  that  Moose  Island,  Dudley  Island  and  Frederick  Island,  in  the 
Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  which  is  part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  do,  and  each  of 
them  does,  belong  to  the  United  States  of  America;  and  we  have  also  decided, 
and  do  decide,  that  all  the  other  islands,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  in  the 
said  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  which  is  part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  and  the  island 
of  Grand  Manan  in  the  said  Bay  of  Fundy,  do  belong  to  his  said  Brittanic 
Majesty,  in  conformity  with  the  true  intent  of  the  said  second  article  of  the 
said  treaty  of  1783. 

“In  faith  and  testimony  whereof  we  have  set  our  hands  and  affixed  our 
seals  at  the  City  of  New  York,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  this  24th  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Uord  1817. 

Witness,  Thomas  Barclay,  [L.  S.] 

James  T.  Austin,  John  Holmes,  [L.  S.] 

Ag-t.  U.S.  A. 

Anth.  Barclay, 

Sec'y.  ’ ’ 

In  a joint  letter  the  commissioners  communicated  their  decision 
to  the  two  governments.  In  this  letter  they  explained  their  action 
as  follows:  “in  making  this  decision  it  became  necessary  that 
each  of  the  commissioners  should  yield  a part  of  his  individual 
opinion.  Several  reasons  induced  them  to  adopt  this  measure; 
one  of  which  was  the  impression  and  belief  that  the  navigable 
waters  of  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  which,  by  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  is  said  to  be  a part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  are  common  to 
both  parties  for  the  purpose  of  all  lawful  and  direct  communica- 
tion with  their  own  territories  and  foreign  ports.’’  ^ 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  December  2,  1817,  President  Mon- 
roe referred  to  the  decision  of  the  commissioners,  and  declared  his 
satisfaction  with  the  decision.  The  British  commissioner,  in  a let- 
ter to  Mr.  Chipman,  the  British  agent,  not  finding  in  the  message 

1 Moore,  International  Arbitrations,  I,  61,  62. 


THE  BOtTNDARY  IN  PASSAMAOUODDY  BAY. 


91 


a word  concerning  “the  Bay  of  Fundy  or  island  of  Grand  Manan,” 
inferred  that  the  president  felt  “sore  on  that  point.”  ^ Mr.  Web- 
ster, in  a letter  to  Mr.  Gray,  May  11,  1841,  referring  to  the  mat- 
ter, wrote:  “You  know  we  think  that  Grand  Manan  should  have 
been  assigned  to  us.”^  This,  evidently  had  been  a very  general 
opinion  with  those  who  had  given  much  attention  to  the  matter 
from  the  time  the  decision  was  made.  As  has  already  been  stated. 
Great  Britain’s  claim  to  Grand  Manan  presented  difficulties  that 
gave  anxiety  to  the  British  commissioner  while  searching  for  evi- 
dence in  its  support;  and  it  may  be  true  that  if  Mr.  Holmes  had 
been  less  anxious  with  reference  to  his  seat  in  Congress  and  had 
exhibited,  as  the  representative  of  the  United  States,  equal  firm- 
ness and  dexterity  as  the  British  commissioner,  a different  decision 
might  have  been  recorded. 

But  Colonel  Barclay’s  statement  to  Ford  Castlereagh,  as  to 
the  way  in  which  the  decision  was  reached,  should  here  be  added 
in  justice  to  Mr.  Holmes:  “He  [Mr.  Holmes]  appeared  astonished 
that  either  myself,  or  his  Majesty’s  agent,  had  ever  been  serious 

in  the  claim  for  Grand  Manan and  [said]  that  he  never 

would  consent  to  decide  that  this  island  belonged  to  his  Majesty. 
To  these  remarks  I replied  by  declaring  that  unless  he  acceded  to 
my  last  proposal,  the  appeal  should  be  made  to  a friendly  sover- 
eign or  state.  Eventually  he  agreed  to  give  up  Grand  Manan, 
provided  I would  add  the  island  of  Campo  Bello  to  the  three  I 
had  offered  to  give  to  the  United  States.  I told  him  he  had  my 
ultimatum,  an  ultimatum  I had  brought  myself  with  much  diffi- 
culty to  offer  while  under  a conviction  that  his  Majesty’s  title  to 
Moose,  Dudley  and  Frederick  islands  was  beyond  dispute.  It  was 
not  until  the  morning  of  the  9th  that  I could  induce  the  commis- 
sioner on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  agree  to  the  terms  I had 
proposed,  and  then  with  great  reluctance  and  apparent  hesitation, 
and  only  on  condition  that  I would  unite  with  him  in  a letter  to 
both  governments  expressive  of  our  opinion  that  the  eastern 

^ Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay^  399. 

2 Webster,  Private  Correspondence , II,  103. 


92 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


passage  from  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  was  common  to  both 
nations.”  ^ 

Because  of  treaty  stipulations,  as  already  mentioned,  British 
troops  remained  at  Eastport  until  June  30,  1818.  The  designated 
day  of  their  departure  at  length  dawned,  and  it  was  made  a mem- 
orable day  in  this  most  easterly  frontier  town  in  the  United  States. 
The  ceremonies  connected  with  the  surrender  of  British  authority 
centered  at  the  fort  occupied  by  the  British  garrison.  Captain  R. 
Gibbon  commanding.  Brigadier  General  James  Miller  of  the 
regular  army  had  been  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  United 
States  to  receive  the  surrender  of  the  place.  He  was  accompanied 
by  his  aide,  Uieutenant  Allanson,  while  Massachusetts  was  repre- 
sented by  Lieutenant  Colonel  Sargent.  At  seven  o’clock  in  the 
morning,  in  the  presence  of  these  representatives  of  national  and 
state  governments,  of  British  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  garrison, 
of  officers  and  soldiers  who  were  to  take  their  places,  and  of 
citizens  of  Eastport  and  the  surrounding  country,  the  British  flag 
was  lowered  and  replaced  by  the  flag  of  the  United  States  amid 
such  outbursts  of  patriotic  feeling  as  found  expression  in  the  dis- 
charge of  cannon,  the  strains  of  martial  music,  and  especially  in 
the  hearty,  prolonged  cheers  of  the  witnessing  throng.  Then  the 
British  troops  marched  to  the  ships  awaiting  them,  embarked, 
sailed,  and  Eastport  was  left  to  added  exhibitions  of  the  general 
rejoicing.  These  were  continued  on  the  following  day  at  a public 
dinner  given  by  the  people  of  Eastport  in  honor  of  General  Miller. 
A century  of  peace  between  the  two  great  English  speaking  coun- 
tries has  followed.  May  the  bonds  of  friendship  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,  greatly  strengthened  during  this 
long  period  and  especially  in  the  recent  great  world  war,  never 
again  be  broken! 

^ Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  394. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Search  for  the  “Highlands.” 

E fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent  contained  the  fol- 
lowing provision  for  the  establishment  of  the  boundary 
line  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  provinces 
above  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River,  as  determined 
by  the  St.  Croix  commission: 

Whereas  neither  that  point  of  the  highlands  lying  due  north  from  the 
source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  designated  in  the  former  treaty  of  peace 
between  the  two  powers  as  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  nor  the 
northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut  river,  has  yet  been  ascertained;  and 
whereas  that  part  of  the  boundary  line  between  the  dominions  of  the  two 
powers  which  extends  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  directly  north, 
to  the  above  mentioned  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia;  thence  along  the 
said  highlands  which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  river 
St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  to  the  northwest- 
ernmost head  of  Connecticut  river;  thence  down  along  the  middle  of  that 
river  to  the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latitude;  thence  by  a line  due  west  on 
said  latitude,  until  it  strikes  the  river  Iroquois  or  Cataraquy,  which  has  not 
yet  been  surveyed;  it  is  agreed  that,  for  these  several  purposes,  two  commis- 
sioners shall  be  appointed,  sworn  and  authorized  to  act  exactlj'  in  the  man- 
ner directed  with  respect  to  those  mentioned  in  the  next  preceding  article,^ 
unless  otherwise  specified  in  the  present  article.  The  said  commissioners 
shall  meet  at  St.  Andrews,  in  the  province  of  New  Brunswick  and  shall  have 

power to  ascertain  and  determine  the  points  above  mentioned,  in 

conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  said  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  and  shall 
cause  the  boundary  aforesaid,  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix  to  the 
river  Iroquois  or  Cataraquy,  to  be  surveyed  and  marked  according  to  the  said 
provisions.  The  said  commissioners  shall  make  a map  of  the  said  boundary, 
and  annex  to  it  a declaration  under  their  hands  and  seals,  certifying  it  to  be  the 
true  map  of  the  said  boundar}^  and  particularizing  the  latitude  and  longitude 
of  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  of  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Con- 
necticut river,  and  of  such  other  points  of  the  said  boundary  as  they  may 
deem  proper;  and  both  parties  agree  to  consider  such  map  and  declaration  as 
finally  and  conclusively  fixing  the  said  boundary.  And  in  the  event  of  the 

bln  article  referring  to  the  Passamaquoddy  islands. 


94 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


two  said  commissioners  differing,  or  both  or  either  of  them  refusing  or  de- 
clining, or  willfully  omitting  to  act,  such  reports,  declarations  or  statements 
shall  be  made  by  them,  or  either  of  them,  and  such  reference  to  a friendly 
Sovereign  or  State  shall  be  made  in  all  respects  as  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  article  is  contained,  and  in  as  full  a manner  as  if  the  same  was  herein 
repeated.  1 

As  commissioner  under  these  provisions,  George  III,^  September 
4,  1815,  appointed  Thomas  Barclay,  who  had  served  Great  Britain 
on  the  St.  Croix  commission,  and  also  on  the  commission  that 
determined  the  boundary  line  among  the  islands  of  Passamaquoddy 
Bay  and  the  nationality  of  the  island  of  Grand  Manan.  April  3, 
1816,  President  Madison,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate, appointed  as  the  commissioner  for  the  United  States,  Corne- 
lius P.  Van  Ness,  of  Vermont.®  The  two  commissioners,  sailing 
from  Portland,  August  17,  1816,  arrived  at  St.  Andrews  on  the 
22nd,  and  entered  upon  the  consideration  of  matters  to  which 
their  attention  had  been  directed.  Henry  H.  Orne,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, was  made  the  secretary  of  the  commission,  while  Ward 
Chipman,  who  had  been  the  British  agent  in  connection  with  the 
St.  Croix  commission,  and  his  son.  Ward  Chipman,  Jr.,  appeared 
as  agents  for  Great  Britain,  jointly  or  separately;  but  as  at  this 
time  no  agent  for  the  United  States  had  been  appointed,  the  com- 
mission, after  a session  of  two  days,  adjourned  to  meet  in  Boston, 
June  4,  1817.  When  the  commission  reassembled  at  that  time, 
Mr.  William  C.  Bradley,  of  Vermont,  whom  President  Madison, 
February  17,  1817,  had  appointed  agent  for  the  United  States, 
appeared  and  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  oflfice.  Colonel  Joseph 
Bouchette,  surveyor  general  of  Quebec,  was  appointed  chief  sur- 

American  State  Papers,  II,  746,  747. 

2 In  1811,  George  III  became  hopelessly  insane,  and  during  the  rest  of  his 
reign  the  government  was  administered  under  the  regency  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales,  afterward  George  IV.  George  III  died  January  29,  1820. 

® At  the  time  of  his  appointment  Mr.  Van  Ness  was  the  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney  for  the  State  of  Vermont.  Subsequently  he  was  collector  of 
the  port  of  Burlington,  chief  justice  of  Vermont,  governor  of  the  state.  United 
States  minister  to  Spain,  and  later  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


95 


veyor  for  Great  Britain,  with  Colin  Campbell  and  Joseph  Bou- 
chette,  Jr.,  as  his  assistants;  while  John  Johnson  was  made  chief 
surveyor  for  the  United  States,  with  Mr.  Turner  and  Mr.  Burn- 
ham as  his  assistants. 

Conferences  were  held  in  Boston  with  reference  to  the  work  of 
the  commission.  June  11th,  the  commissioners  approved,  under 
eleven  articles,  instructions  which  had  been  prepared  for  the  sur- 
veyors, by  the  agents  of  the  two  governments.  These  directed 
the  surveyors,  with  their  chain-bearers,  ax-men  and  other  assist- 
ants, to  repair  without  delay  to  St.  John,  New  Brunswick,  and 
thence,  with  the  necessary  provisions  and  other  supplies,  to  pro- 
ceed up  the  river  St.  John  to  a point  from  which  they  could  most 
conveniently  make  their  way  to  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River 
“near  a yellow  birch  tree,  hooped  with  iron  and  marked  S T and 
J H 1797.”^  There,  they  were  to  divide  into  two  parties,  each 
to  be  placed  under  the  direction  of  such  assistant  surveyors  as  the 
respective  agents  should  select;  then,  commencing  the  survey, 
and  running  the  line  due  north  upon  a meridional  line,  they  were 
to  continue  their  work  until  further  orders. 

By  article  sixth  of  the  instructions.  Colonel  Bouchette  and  Mr. 
Johnson,  chief  surveyors,  with  a sufficient  number  of  each  party, 
were  directed,  while  the  survey  was  in  progress,  to  make  an 
exploring  survey  “following  a line  due  north  from  the  declared 
source  of  the  St.  Croix  river”  until  they  should  arrive  at  some 
one  of  the  streams  or  waters  which  are  connected  with  the  river 
St.  Lawrence.  They  were  also  to  “explore  the  different  high- 
lands which  lie  between  the  last  mentioned  line  and  the  north- 
westernmost  head  of  Connecticut  river.”  ^ 

The  work  of  the  first  of  these  parties.  Colonel  Barclay  regarded 
as  “a  simple  operation,”  but  with  reference  to  such  “highlands” 
as  would  satisfy  the  expectations  naturally  raised  by  the  second 

^ The  capital  letters  stand  for  Samuel  Titcomb  and  John  Harris,  the  sur- 
veyors employed  to  survey  the  northern  branch  of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  its 
source . 

‘‘■Manuscript  Jotcrnal  of  Proceedings,  State  Library,  19-30 


96 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  he  said  he  was  doubtful.^  The  lan- 
guage of  the  treaty  seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  that  found 
in  a proclamation  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  October  7,  1763, 
in  establishing  the  line  between  the  Province  of  Quebec  and  the 
Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  making  the  line  to  pass  “along  the  high- 
lands which  divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  said 
St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into  the  sea.”  ^ Then,  and  for 
some  time  later,  very  little  was  known  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic 
about  the  country  in  that  remote  region,  and  still  less  was  known 
in  England.  The  use  of  the  word  “highlands”  instead  of  moun- 
tains, in  this  proclamation  of  1763,  would  naturally  indicate  a 
watershed  dividing  the  rivers  that  fall  into  the  sea  or  ocean  froth 
those  that  empty  themselves  into  the  St.  Lawrence;  and  the  nego- 
tiators of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  their  use  of  the  word  “highlands” 
in  their  designation  of  the  boundary  line  between  the  point  where 
the  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  strikes 
these  highlands,  had  no  better  information  than  that  contained  in 
the  king’s  proclamation.  But  when  Judge  Sullivan,  in  1795,  pub- 
lished his  History  of  the  District  of  Maine,  he  inserted  a map  on 
which,  from  the  point  where  a due  north  line  from  the  source  of 
the  St.  Croix  River  would  strike  the  watershed,  he  represented  a 
line  of  mountains  extending  in  a southwesterly  direction  to  the 
northwesternmost  head  of  the  Connecticut  River.  There  are  no 
such  mountains  in  the  same  location  on  Mitchell’s  map  of  1755, 
which  was  used  by  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  In  fact, 
as  early  as  1802,  because  of  better  information.  Judge  Sullivan,  as 
appears  in  a letter  which  he  wrote  to  Madison  on  May  20th  of 
that  year,  had  corrected  his  own  views  concerning  that  region. 
The  commissioners  employed  by  the  British  government  in  run- 
ning the  line  between  the  Province  of  Quebec  and  that  of  Nova 
Scotia,  evidently  looking  for  mountains  and  not  a watershed, 
failed  to  find  the  “highlands”  mentioned  in  the  king’s  proclama- 

^ Correspofidence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  374,  375. 

Report  of  the  Joint  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sejitatives  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  Relation  to  the  N.  E.  Boundary , 1828. 
Appendix  VI. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


97 


tion.  “l  have  seen  one  of  them,”  wrote  Sullivan  to  Madison 
referring  to  these  commissioners,  “who  agrees  with  the  account  I 
have  had  from  the  natives  and  others,  that  there  are  no  mountains 
or  highlands  on  the  southerly  side  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and 
northeastward  of  the  Chaudiere.  That,  from  the  mouth  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  to  that  river,  there  is  a vast  extent  of  high  flat  country 

being  a morass  of  millions  of  acres That  the 

rivers  originating  in  this  elevated  swamp  pass  each  other  wide 
asunder,  many  miles  in  opposite  courses,  some  to  the  St.  Law- 
rence and  some  to  the  Atlantic  sea.  Should  this  description  be 
founded  in  fact,  nothing  can  be  effectively  done,  as  to  a Canada 
line,  without  a commission  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  place  of  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  wherever  that  may  be  agreed  to 
be;  if  there  is  no  mountain  or  natural  monument,  an  artificial 
one  may  be  raised.”  ^ 

This  assumption  by  Judge  Sullivan,  that  “highland”  in  the 
treaty  of  1783  meant  a ridge  or  watershed,  was  accepted  by  Mr. 
Madison,  and  in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  King,  to  guide  him  in  his 
negotiations  with  Lord  Hawkesbury,  Mr.  Madison,  in  accordance 
with  this  assumption,  proposed  the  appointment  of  a commission 
“to  determine  on  a point  most  proper  to  be  substituted  for  the 
description  in  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  having  due 
regard  to  the  general  idea  that  the  line  ought  to  terminate  on  the 
elevated  ground  dividing  the  rivers  falling  into  the  Atlantic  from 
those  emptying  themselves  into  the  St.  Lawrence.  The  commis- 
sioners may  be  also  authorized  to  substitute  for  the  description  of 
the  boundary  between  the  point  so  fixed  and  the  northwestern- 
most  head  of  Connecticut  river,  namely,  a line  drawn  along  the 
said  highlands,  such  a reference  to  intermediate  sources  of  rivers 
or  other  ascertained  or  ascertainable  points,  to  be  connected  by 
straight  lines,  as  will  admit  of  easy  and  accurate  execution  here- 
after, and  as  will  best  comport  with  the  apparent  intention  of  the 
treaty  of  1783.”  In  other  words,  the  line  indicated  in  the  treaty 

'^American  State  Papers,  II,  587. 


7 


98 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


was  incapable  of  execution,  and  this  important  recognition  of  the 
British  claim  found  here  official  expression  in  such  a way  as  to  be 
the  occasion  of  embarrassment  afterwards  to  those  supporting  the 
American  claim.  “Governor  Sullivan’s  blunder  in  that  respect,’ 
wrote  Mr.  Gallatin  at  a later  period  in  the  boundary  controversy, 
“was  the  source  whence  arose  our  difficulties,  and  which  led  our 
government  to  declare,  in  fact,  that  in  its  opinion  there  were,  in 
the  topography  of  the  country,  obstacles  to  the  execution  of  the 
treaty.’’^  And  yet,  Mr.  Madison  really  conceded  nothing  of  any 
importance.  The  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  with  Mitch- 
ell’s map  before  them,  on  which  there  was  no  line  of  mountains 
reached  by  a line  due  north  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River 
and  extending  southwesterly  to  the  northwesternmost  head  of 
Connecticut  River,  could  not  have  meant  by  the  word  “high- 
lands” anything  more  than  a watershed  from  which,  as  specific- 
ally mentioned,  rivers  flowed,  some  into  the  St.  Rawrence  and 
some  into  the  sea.  In  fact,  the  idea  underlying  Governor  Sulli- 
van’s statement  was  that  the  substituted  line  should  be  drawn  as 
nearly  as  possible  through  the  region  where  the  “highlands”  had 
been  supposed  to  exist.  Nevertheless,  the  Sullivan  letter  and 
Madison’s  instructions  based  upon  it,  having  been  communicated 
to  Congress  and  made  a matter  of  public  record,  was  a concession 
in  words  of  which  much  was  made. 

During  the  war  of  1812-1815,  Great  Britain  naturally  gave  little 
attention  to  boundary  matters  except  as  connected  with  peace 
negotiations  at  the  end  of  the  war.  Allusion  has  already  been 
made  to  renewed  British  designs  with  reference  to  an  extension  of 
the  boundary  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  Penobscot.  During  the 
war  the  isolated  position  of  the  maritime  provinces.  Nova  Scotia 
and  New  Brunswick,  suggested  the  importance  of  securing  if  pos- 
sible shorter  and  otherwise  more  desirable  communications  with 
Canada;  and  what  was  said  along  this  line  was  strongly  empha- 
sized by  military  considerations.  Accordingly,  on  the  part  of  the 

1 Letter  to  Charles  S.  Daveis,  of  Portland,  Writings  of  Albert  Gallatin, 
II,  546. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


99 


inhabitants  of  these  two  provinces,  as  the  war  drew  to  a close, 
efforts  were  made  for  obtaining  in  any  renewal  of  boundary 
considerations  such  a change  in  the  north  line  as  would  meet 
the  object  they  had  in  view.  This  object  found  expression  in 
the  following  resolve  adopted  by  the  New  Brunswick  House  of 
Assembly,  February  15,  1814:  ''Resolved,  That  the  Council  be 
requested  to  appoint  a committee,  to  meet  a committee  of  this 
House,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  a humble  petition  to  his  Royal 
Highness,  the  Prince  Regent,  praying  that  when  a negotiation  for 
peace  shall  take  place  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
of  America  his  Royal  Highness  will  be  graciously  pleased  to  direct 
such  measures  to  be  adopted  as  he  may  think  proper  to  alter  the 
boundaries  between  those  states  and  this  province,  so  as  that  the 
important  line  of  communication  between  this  and  the  neighbor- 
ing province  of  Rower  Canada,  by  the  River  St.  John,  may  not 
be  interrupted.” 

Indications  of  the  influence  of  this  resolve  are  discoverable  in 
the  preliminary  negotiations  connected  with  the  treaty  of  Ghent, 
when  on  August  8,  1814,  the  British  representatives  made  to  the 
American  negotiators  a proposal  for  a revision  of  the  boundary 
line  between  the  British  and  American  territories  “with  a view  to 
prevent  future  uncertainty  and  dispute,”  ^ which,  in  a note  to  the 
negotiators  dated  August  18th,  was  otherwise  stated  as  meaning 
“such  a variation  of  the  frontier  line  as  may  secure  a direct  com- 
munication between  Quebec  and  Halifax.”^  When  to  this  sug- 
gestion the  American  commissioners  at  Ghent,  August  24th, 
replied  that  they  had  “no  authority  to  cede  any  part  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,”  the  British  commissioners,  September 
4th,  made  an  added  suggestion  that  their  ‘ ‘proposal  left  it  open 
for  them  [the  United  States  commissioners]  to  demand  an  equiva- 
lent for  such  cession  in  territory  or  otherwise,  and  that  an  arrange- 
ment on  this  point  might  be  easily  made,  if  entered  into  with  the 
spirit  of  conciliation,  without  any  prejudice  to  the  interests  of  the 

'^American  State  Papers,  IX,  330. 

^Ganong,  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  314. 


100 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


district  in  question.”  The  American  commissioners,  September 
26th,  declined  to  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  such  a revision 
of  the  boundary  line,  “an  alteration  which  could  not  be  effected 
without  a cession  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain  of  all  that 
portion  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  intervening  between  the 
Province  of  New  Brunswick  and  Quebec,  although  unquestion- 
ably included  within  the  boundary  lines  fixed  by  that  treaty.” 
Returning  to  the  matter  again  on  October  8th,  the  British  com- 
missioners disclaimed  any  request  for  “all  that  portion  of  Massa- 
chusetts between  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick  and  Quebec,” 
having  in  view,  they  said,  “only  that  small  portion  of  unsettled 
country  which  interrupts  the  communication  between  Halifax  and 
Quebec,  there  being  much  doubt  whether  it  does  not  already 
belong  to  Great  Britain.”  ^ 

This  correspondence  reveals  the  gradual  disclosure  of  the  Brit- 
ish claim  with  reference  to  the  northern  boundary.  At  first  all 
that  was  proposed  was  a revision  of  the  frontier  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  disputes;  next,  it^as  such  a variation  of  the  bound- 
ary line  as  would  secure  a direct  communication  between  Quebec 
and  Halifax;  and  when  to  this  the  American  commissioners  made 
objection  that  they  had  no  authority  to  cede  any  part  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  the  British  commissioners  still  pressed 
their  appeal,  urging  the  added  statement  that  the  proposal  left  it 
open  for  the  United  States  to  demand  for  such  cession  an  equiv- 
alent in  territory  or  otherwise,  thus  admitting  that  the  line 
described  in  the  treaty  of  1783  was  understood  by  them  to  be  a 

'^American  State  Papers,  IX,  381,  405,  415.  “It  was  the  military  authori- 
ties at  Quebec  who  first  perceived  the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  the  case 
was  very  clearly  stated  by  Lord  Dorchester,  Governor  General  of  British 
North  America  in  1785,  to  whom  belongs  the  credit  not  only  of  perceiving 
the  issue  clearly  but  also  of  formulating  the  claim  for  a boundary  at  the 
central  highlands,  afterward  adopted  by  Great  Britain  and  maintained  until 
1842.”  Ganong,  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  305.  The  statement  in 
Winsor’s  Narrative  a?td  Critical  History  of  the  United  States,  VII,  174,  that 
the  British  claim  had  its  origin  in  the  war  of  1812,  therefore,  must  be  regarded 


as  erroneous. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


101 


line  that  prevented  direct  communication  between  Canada  and 
the  maritime  provinces.  In  other  words,  the  line  they  now  sought 
was  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  could  be  obtained 
by  cession  of  territory  only,  and  not  of  right. 

The  early  work  of  the  surveyors  indicated  harmonious  relations 
between  the  two  parties.  In  the  summer  of  1817,  both  the  Amer- 
ican and  British  chief  surveyors,  Bouchette  and  Johnson,  dili- 
gently prosecuted  their  united  efforts  to  find  the  “highlands”  of 
the  treaty  of  1783  by  a due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St. 
Croix.  Crossing  the  St.  John  River,  they  came  at  length  to  the 
watershed  between  the  St.  John  and  the  Restigouche,  where  they 
stopped  in  consequence  of  having  fulfilled  their  instructions, 
according  to  a letter  from  Bouchette  to  Ward  Chipman,  January  7, 
1818 — a clear  indication  that  at  that  time  Bouchette  believed  that 
the  “highlands”  of  the  treaty  were  there.  In  his  report,  refer- 
ring to  this  watershed,  he  said:  “This  part  of  the  country  is  con- 
spicuously high  and  is  the  summit  of  a range  of  highlands  which 
stretches  towards  the  southwest,  and  another  branch  seems  to 
detach  itself  at  no  considerable  distance  to  the  west  in  a northwest 
direction.  The  descent  at  the  Wagansis  is  steep  and  continues 

descending  alternately  by  gradual  and  steep  ridges to 

the  Great  Wagansis  or  first  branch  of  the  waters  of  the  Resti- 
gouche.” ^ Mr.  Johnson,  in  his  report,  made  a like  statement  with 
reference  to  the  highlands:  “Passing  through  a large  swamp, 

which  gives  rise  to  the  Wagansis  or  Grand  river we 

crossed  the  ridge  called  Sugar  Mountain,  which  divides  the  waters 
of  the  St.  John  river  from  those  of  the  Restigouche  river,  and  is 
evidently  the  highest  land  we  passed  over  during  the  season.  The 
extent  of  the  ridge  is  not  particularly  known,  but  it  probably 
extends  to  the  west  and  northwest  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the 
east  on  the  other,  sufficiently  to  divide  the  waters  of  the  above 
said  rivers.”  ^ 

^Appendix  to  the  British  Agenfs  Reply ^ State  Library,  16. 

^Ib.,  31,  32.  The  British  commissioner  and  agent  were  not  satisfied  with 
the  services  of  Mr.  Bouchette  and  he  was  soon  displaced.  Although  he  was 


102 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Later  in  the  progress  of  the  work  of  the  surveyors,  it  was  evi- 
dent that  those  having  charge  of  British  interests  were  intent 
upon  finding  the  “highlands”  in  the  region  of  Mars  Hill.  Suc- 
cess in  this  direction,  it  was  found,  would  give  the  maritime 
provinces  that  easy  direct  communication  with  upper  Canada, 
which,  with  the  growth  of  the  British  provinces  in  North  Amer- 
ica, appeared  increasingly  desirable.  Those  in  charge  of  the 
interests  of  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  sought  a bound- 
ary line  by  carrying  the  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St. 
Croix  River  to  the  “highlands,”  that  is,  to  such  elevations  of 
country  as  divide  the  “rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  river 
St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,” 
strictly  adhering  to  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  hav- 
ing in  view  no  loss  of  territory  deemed  rightfully  to  belong  to  the 
United  States.  Doubtless,  to  the  instructions  received  by  the 
agents  and  communicated  by  them  to  the  surveyors,  there  were 
added  injunctions  suggested  by  the  importance  of  the  work 
intrusted  to  them.  “We  must  exert  ourselves,”  wrote  Colonel 
Barclay  to  Mr.  Chipman  November  8,  1817.  He  rightly  saw  that 
the  task  in  hand  was  one  of  far  greater  importance  than  was 
assigned  to  the  St.  Croix  commission,  or  was  imposed  by  the  con- 
troversy over  the  Passamaquoddy  islands.  Especially  must  the 
present  British  claim  have  been  regarded  as  calling  for  a supreme 
effort  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Chipman,  during  the  St.  Croix  con- 
troversy, had  taken  the  position  that  the  north  line  from  the  source 
of  the  St.  Croix  river  would  not  only  of  necessity  cross  the  St. 
John  River,  but  would  cross  it  in  part  almost  at  the  foot  of  the 
highlands,  and  where  the  river  ceased  to  be  navigable.  In  his 
private  letters  Mr.  Chipman  expressed  the  same  conviction.  In 
New  Brunswick,  in  the  earlier  period  of  the  controversy,  this  was 
the  generally  accepted  opinion  of  the  boundary  line.  From  vari- 

the  surveyor  general  of  Canada,  Mr.  Chipman  now  found  that  he  was  want- 
ing in  at  lea.st  “practical  professional  knowledge,  prudence,  nerve  and  con- 
stitution, and  on  the  whole not  a character  in  whom  a matter  of 

so  much  moment  as  ascertaining  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  can  with 
safety  be  confided.”  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Barclay,  401. 


Mars  HiIvI,. 


rr.; 


•\S 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHEANDS. 


103 


ous  documents  it  is  shown  that  in  this  province,  so  closely  related 
to  boundary  concerns,  the  opinion  “was  apparently  unanimous 
that  the  due  north  line,  according  to  the  words  of  the  treaty 
must  cross  the  St.  John  and  run  to  the  northern  highlands,  as 
the  Americans  claimed,  thus  cutting  off  the  communication  by  the 
Madawaska.”^  Because  of  the  British  claim  as  now  advanced, 
however,  the  importance  of  a supreme  effort  was  recognized  just 
as  clearly  by  the  United  States  commissioner  and  agent,  as  by 
Messrs.  Barclay  and  Chipman. 

The  commissioners  had  adjourned  to  meet  in  New  York,  May 
12,  1818,  unless  it  should  appear  that  some  other  day  would  be 
considered  more  desirable.  As  the  appointed  day  approached, 
they  decided  to  make  a different  arrangement,  and  called  a meet- 
ing of  the  board  at  Burlington,  Vermont,  May  15,  1818.  At  the 
session  of  the  board  in  that  place,  some  time  was  spent  in  exam- 
iming  accounts,  and  in  receiving  the  reports  of  the  surveyors. 
While  the  work  already  done  was  in  progress,  differences  in  the 
matter  of  procedure  had  developed,  and  to  these  differences 
the  British  agent  early  called  the  attention  of  the  commissioners. 
In  his  opinion  any  extension  of  the  line  due  north  from  the  source 
of  the  St.  Croix,  as  proposed,  would  not  determine  the  point 
where  it  would  intersect  any  highlands  that  could  be  found;  and 
if  it  should  be  thought  best  later  to  run  such  a line  this  could  be 
done  then  with  equal  profit  to  both  parties.  He  accordingly  sug- 
gested that  the  instructions  adopted  the  year  before  with  reference 
to  that  line  should  now  be  suspended,  and  that  the  surveyors 
should  give  their  attention  to  an  exploring  survey  of  the  high- 
lands, the  survey  to  commence  at  the  highlands  lying  nearest  to 
the  source  of  the  St.  Croix,  namely  “in  that  tract  of  country 
lying  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  River  Restook  [Aroostook]  and 
Des  Chutes  [De  Chute]  and  extending  thence  towards  the  sources 
of  the  River  Chaudiere  and  Kennebec,”  in  which  tract  of  country 
the  British  agent  thought  he  had  good  cause  to  believe  that  the 
highlands  mentioned  in  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent 

^ Ganong,  Boundaries  of  New  Brunsruick , 309-312. 


104 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


would  be  found.  The  agent  of  the  United  States  objected  to  any 
such  relinquishment  of  work  partially  accomplished;  especially 
as  the  line,  if  advanced  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  already 
adopted,  would  bring  the  explorers  into  a section  of  country  not 
generally  known,  and  in  which,  as  the  representative  of  the 
United  States,  he  believed  the  highlands  of  the  treaty  of  1783 
would  be  reached.^ 

The  commissioners,  because  of  these  differences  on  the  part  of 
the  agents  of  the  two  countries,  directed  that  the  exploration 
of  the  due  north  line  should  be  continued  as  directed,  and  that 
when  that  servdce  was  completed  the  exploring  survey  of  the  high- 
lands should  commence  in  that  tract  of  country  suggested  by  the 
British  agent,  namely  in  the  Mars  Hill  country,  and  continue 
“until  all  the  highlands  between  the  northwesternmost  head  of 
the  Connecticut  river  and  the  whole  extent  of  the  said  due  north 
exploring  line,”  should  be  examined  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
agents  of  the  two  governments.  At  this  meeting  William  T. 
Odell  was  made  chief  surveyor  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  in 
place  of  Joseph  Bouchette,  and  the  board  adjourned  to  meet  in 
Montreal,  Canada,  on  May  29th.  At  Montreal  one  meeting  was 
held,  and  then  the  commissioners  proceeded  to  St.  Regis,  to 
which  place  the  board  adjourned  to  meet  on  June  3rd.  Delay  at 
St.  Regis  was  occasioned  by  the  late  arrival  of  the  chief  astrono- 
mer on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Hassler,  detained  by 
illness.  Directions  were  now  formulated  for  Mr.  Hassler’s  work, 
and  the  board  adjourned  to  meet  in  New  York,  November  30, 
1818,  unless  the  commissioners,  before  that  time,  should  agree  to 
reconvene  at  a different  time  or  place. ^ 

Previous  to  November  30th,  ascertaining  that  the  astronomers 
and  surveyors  would  not  be  prepared  at  the  close  of  November  to 
make  a report  of  their  operations,  the  commissioners  postponed 
the  meeting  until  May  5,  1819,  when  the  board  reassembled  in 
New  York.  There,  reports  were  received  from  the  astronomers 

^Manuscript  Journal  of  Proceedings,  State  library,  50-55. 

^Ib.,  State  Librar}',  56-63. 


THE  search  for  the  HIGHLANDS. 


105 


and  the  sun^eyors.  Among  these  reports  were  those  of  Mr.  Odell 
and  Mr.  Johnson,  who  had  completed  their  survey  of  the  due 
north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix,  until,  not  far  from 
Beaver  River,  they  reached  a watershed  dividing  the  waters  that 
empty  themselves  into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean.  Mr.  Johnson,  in  his  report,  made  mention 
of  “the  ridge”  which  divides  these  waters;  but  Mr.  Odell  called 
the  elevation  “very  small,”  and  said  there  was  “no  appearance  of 
highlands.”  Then  the  surveyors  made  their  way  to  Mars  Hill 
and  examined  a part  of  the  line  of  the  British  claim  as  now  urged, 
including  “several  peaks  of  Mars  Hill.”^ 

At  the  meeting  in  New  York,  May  5,  1819,  Mr.  Chipman,  in  a 
memorial,  called  attention  to  the  work  of  the  exploring  parties. 
Lack  of  harmony  on  the  part  of  the  agents  now  appeared  as  the 
British  agent  called  the  attention  of  the  board  to  the  papers  sub- 
mitted by  the  agent  for  the  United  States,  among  which  were  a 
report  of  the  chief  surveyor  of  the  United  States  and  a map  of  the 
country  explored  in  1817  and  1818.  Objection  was  made  to  delin- 
eations upon  this  map  not  derivable  from  actual  surveys,  but  from 
information  obtained  from  sundry  “intelligent  persons,”  whose 
long  acquaintance  with  the  country,  according  to  the  report,  had 
enabled  them  to  give  a very  particular  description,  but  which 
the  British  agent  attributed  to  “the  unfounded  suggestions  of 
an  over-hasty  zeal.”  Only  “mischievous  consequences”  would 
result  from  silent  aquiescence  in  proceedings  so  unprecedented 
and  unwarrantable,  he  said;  ^ and  he  requested  that  neither  the 
report  nor  the  map  should  be  permitted  to  remain  on  the  files  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  board. 

On  the  following  day,  the  agent  of  the  United  States  replied  to 
these  statements.  He  resented  the  use  of  such  phrases  as  “un- 
founded suggestions,”  “over-hasty  zeal,”  “mischievous  conse- 
quences,” etc.  Ex-parte  information,  he  said,  would  be  found  in 
British  reports.  Certainly  nothing  could  be  more  “loose”  and 

^Appendix  to  the  British  Claim,  State  Library,  46-55,  59-67. 

Hb.,  60-64. 


106 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ex-parte  than  an  attempted  description  of  a source  of  a river, 
made  by  a British  surveyor,  on  the  authority  of  one  who  derived 
his  information  from  the  Indians.  This  great  controversy,  he 
remarked,  will  not  be  decided  by  any  exceptions  of  this  nature, 
but  according  to  those  just  and  liberal  principles  which  are  most 
consonant  with  good  faith  and  the  exalted  character  of  the  gov- 
ernments that  had  confided  to  the  commission  this  weighty  and 
honorable  trust. ^ 

Added  heat  was  developed  as  other  memorials  followed  along 
the  same  line;  but  the  commissioners,  differing  in  opinion,  took 
no  action  with  reference  to  the  British  agent’s  request  to  have  the 
objectionable  report  and  map  removed  from  the  file.  New  instruc- 
tions for  the  surveyors,  however,  as  prepared  by  the  agents,  were 
adopted  for  the  further  prosecution  of  their  work.  Additional 
proceedings  as  to  the  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St. 
Croix  River  were  suspended  for  the  present,  and  attention  was 
directed  to  that  part  of  their  work  that  had  reference  to  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  the  highlands  dividing  the 
rivers  emptying  into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

In  the  first  place  they  were  to  explore  the  Mars  Hill  region; 
also  the  tract  of  country  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Aroostook 
River,  then  known  as  the  Restook.  Thence  they  were  to  proceed 
to  the  sources  of  the  Chaudiere  and  Kennebec  rivers,  and  the 
highlands  near  the  sources  of  the  Penobscot.  This  was  at 
the  request  of  the  British  agent.  At  the  request  of  the  agent  of 
the  United  States,  they  were  to  make  their  way  to  the  country 
north  of  the  St.  John  River,  and  explore  carefully  all  the  high- 
lands in  that  region.  In  making  these  explorations,  the  surveyors 
were  to  work  “diligently,  amicably  and  impartially”  in  order  to 
carry  into  effect  the  object  of  their  explorations,  namely,  “to 
obtain  a general  and  correct  knowledge  of  the  face  of  the  country 
for  the  information  of  the  commissioners  without  expecting  any 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  priority  of  one  survey  over  the  other 

"^Appendix  to  the  British  Claim,  State  Library,  67-78. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


107 


in  point  of  time.”  For  the  purpose  of  avoiding  misconceptions 
and  mistakes  the  two  parties  from  day  to  day,  if  practicable,  were 
to  communicate  to  each  other  all  observations  and  other  particu- 
lars which  they  intended  to  include  in  their  reports  and  plans  of 
sur\'ey;  while,  if  there  should  be  a difference  of  opinions  “as  to 
the  necessity  of  any  particular  part  thereof  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  a proper  knowledge  of  the  section  of  country  under 
examination,”  the  surveyor  deeming  such  a particular  survey  nec- 
essary was  to  require  it,  in  writing,  of  the  other,  who  was  directed 
to  comply  with  the  request  “after  noting  his  objection  thereto 
in  his  journal.”  ^ The  commissioners  then  adjourned  to  meet  in 
Boston,  on  the  first  Monday  in  May,  1820. 

During  the  summer,  the  work  of  the  surveyors  seems  to  have 
proceeded  amicably,  but  the  plans  outlined  at  New  York  were 
executed  only  in  part.  Both  parties  proceeded  to  Mars  Hill  as 
directed,  reaching  the  place  July  7,  1819;  but  the  weather  proved 
unfavorable  on  account  of  continued  haziness  preventing  expected 
observations,  every  distant  object  being  obscured.  But  as  the 
bearings  of  the  most  conspicuous  hills  and  mountains  had  been 
taken  in  the  preceding  year,  the  British  agent  saw  no  occasion  for 
delay  in  order  to  secure  better  atmospheric  conditions,  while  the 
agent  for  the  United  States  confided  to  him  his  own  opinion  that 
any  “highlands”  in  that  neighborhood  had  nothing  to  do  with 
questions  under  consideration  by  the  commission.  It  was  amica- 
bly said;  but  the  increasing  boldness  of  the  British  in  pressing 
their  Mars  Hill  claim,  in  opposition  to  the  plain  description  of  the 
boundary  line  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  already  stirring  feelings 
of  hostility  that  were  surely  to  become  more  and  more  embitter- 
ing as  the  controversy  continued.  Later  efforts  by  the  surveyors 
to  get  to  the  head  of  the  waters  of  the  St.  John  or  the  Penobscot 
by  way  of  the  Aroostook  River,  as  the  British  agent  desired,  were 
found  impracticable  on  account  of  low  water  in  both  branches, 

^Appendix  to  the  Bi'itish  Claim,  99-104. 


108 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  the  plan  was  abandoned.  The  season  accordingly  closed  with 
the  objects  of  the  survey  largely  unaccomplished.^ 

Instead  of  meeting  in  Boston  on  the  first  Monday  in  May, 
1820,  the  board,  by  agreement  of  the  commissioners,  reconvened 
on  May  11th.  The  journal  furnishes  evidence  of  increasing 
unpleasantness  in  the  relations  of  the  agents  of  the  two  countries. 
The  exploration  surveys  of  three  seasons  had  accomplished  little 
in  locating  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia;  and  though  the 
wilderness  in  which  the  surveys  were  attempted  presented  many 
obstacles,  there  was  nevertheless  a widespread  opinion  that  delay 
had  been  occasioned  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  some  support 
for  what  was  regarded  as  an  indefensible  claim,  especially  in 
Maine,  which  had  now  become  a state,  and  so  was  prepared  to 
take  a more  active  part  than  hitherto  in  defending  territory 
believed  by  the  people  of  Maine  to  be  unjustly  claimed.  This 
growing  public  dissatisfaction  is  recognized  in  additional  instruc- 
tions adopted  by  the  commission  at  this  time  for  the  purpose  “of 
carrying  the  existing  instructions  into  execution  with  more  dis- 
patch,”^ these  existing  instructions  having  reference  to  surveys 
on  the  north  and  south  sides  of  the  St.  John  River.  On  June  2nd, 
the  board  adjourned  to  meet  in  the  city  of  New  York,  October 
23,  1820. 

When  that  day  approached,  it  being  understood  that  the  agents 
were  still  waiting  for  the  surveyors’  reports  and  maps  before  pre- 
senting their  arguments,  the  commissioners  agreed  not  to  summon 
them,  and  it  was  decided  to  hold  the  next  meeting  of  the  board 
in  New  York  on  November  23rd.  Only  three  sessions  were  then 
held,  and  after  directing  the  agents  to  “come  prepared  at  the 
next  meeting  of  the  board  with  their  arguments,  if  any  they  have 
to  submit,”  the  commissioners  adjourned  November  27,  1820,  to 
meet  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  14,  1821.® 

1 Report  of  Chief  Surveyor  Odell  (British),  September  18,  1819,  in  Ward 
Chipma7i  MSS.,  Maine  Historical  Society. 

'^Manuscript  Journal  of  Proceedings,  State  Ribrary,  121. 

3lb.,  124-127. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


109 


November  21,  1820,  the  national  House  of  Representatives 
called  upon  the  president  of  the  United  States  for  information 
respecting  the  progress  of  the  commissioners  in  establishing  the 
northeast  boundary  and  the  expenses  already  incurred.  This 
inquiry  brought  out  the  fact  that  no  information  with  reference 
to  this  expense  had  been  received  by  the  government  at  the  date 
of  the  president’s  message.  Mr.  Van  Ness,  in  a letter  occasioned 
by  this  congressional  inquiry,  said  he  supposed  that  the  American 
agent  had  furnished  the  desired  information,  but  the  letter,  it  was 
said,  contained  “no  disclosure  of  past  exertions  or  future  pros- 
pects.” At  the  opening  of  1821,  Mr.  Van  Ness  informed  the 
secretary  of  state  that  all  the  surveys  relating  to  the  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  northwesternmost  head  of  the  Con- 
necticut River  had  been  completed.  With  reference  to  the 
expenses  of  the  commission,  a treasur}?-  report  showed  that  to 
December  8,  1820,  there  had  been  paid  for  salaries  and  expenses, 
under  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  $99,099.10. 

On  May  14,  1821,  the  commissioners  met  in  New  York,  but  the 
British  agent  had  not  arrived  on  the  15th,  “the  wind  being  unfa- 
vorable.” Mr.  Chipman,  having  arrived  from  St.  John,  was 
present  on  the  23rd,  however,  and  on  the  following  day,  in  a 
memorial,  he  renewed  a proposal,  made  at  a previous  meeting,  to 
take  up  matters  with  reference  to  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia.  Such  a discussion,  he  believed,  would  enable  him  to 
make  a favorable  impression  for  the  British  case.  The  impor- 
tance which  he  attached  to  such  a discussion  he  expressed  Novem- 
ber 6,  1820,  in  a letter  to  Colonel  Barclay,  in  which  he  said:  “The 
question  of  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  must  depend  upon 
the  single  point  whether  the  river  St.  John  is  one  of  the  Atlantic 
rivers  to  be  divided  by  the  treat}?-;  and  upon  this  ground,  I per- 
ceive our  cause  to  be  impregnable.”  ^ 

To  such  a discussion,  covering  only  a single  point,  the  Ameri- 
can agent  objected,  as  he  had  objected  previously  when  the  same 
request  was  made;  and  he  suggested  that  a day  should  be  fixed 

Letter  in  the  Ward  Chipman  MSS.,  Maine  Historical  Society  Library. 


110 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


by  the  commissioners  in  which  the  agents  of  the  two  governments 
should  present  arguments  covering  all  points  bearing  upon  the 
questions  before  the  commission.  The  board  then  “ordered,  that 
on  Friday  next  [June  8,  1821]  be  assigned  for  reading  the  argu- 
ments of  the  respective  agents.”^  The  arguments,  however,  were 
not  presented,  though  the  order  certainly  was  sufficiently  definite. 
On  the  day  appointed  the  British  agent  presented  a memorial  cov- 
ering twenty-eight  pages,  in  which  he  sought  to  relieve  himself 
of  any  responsibility  for  the  delays  that  had  occurred  in  connec- 
tion with  the  surveys;  and  the  agent  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
following  day,  expressed  his  desire  to  make  a reply  to  the  British 
agent.  As  the  commissioners  were  ready  to  adjourn,  however,  he 
gave  notice  that  he  would  avail  himself  of  an  early  opportunity 
for  such  a reply  at  the  next  session.  The  board  then  adjourned 
to  meet  in  New  York,  August  1,  1821.  The  commission  reassem- 
bled at  that  time,  but  no  business  was  transacted  until  August 
6th,  when  the  agent  for  the  United  States,  in  a memorial  covering 
forty-two  pages  of  the  journal,  replied  to  the  memorial  of  the 
British  agent  presented  at  the  previous  session.  At  last,  on 
August  10th-14th,  the  agents  presented  their  arguments. 

The  American  agent,  Mr.  Bradley,  in  his  argument  first  directed 
attention  to  considerations  with  reference  to  the  angle  mentioned 
in  the  treaty  of  1783,  formed,  he  said,  by  the  intersection  of  a line 
drawn  due  north  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  and  the 
highlands,  making  the  angle.  The  highlands  which  divide  the 
waters  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  from  those  connected  with 
the  St.  Lawrence,  it  was  argued,  are  those  which  by  separating 
them  leave  the  Atlantic  streams  on  the  one  side  and  the  St. 
Lawrence  on  the  other.  That  these  lands  had  been  shown  to  be 
sufficiently  elevated  as  to  be  worthy  of  this  designation  was  dem- 
onstrated not  only  by  the  great  length  of  the  rivers  which  run 
from  them  into  the  sea,  but  also  by  the  evidence  furnished  by  the 
surveyors.  The  way  in  which  the  highlands  were  to  be  reached 
had  been  made  clear  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  viz.,  by  a line  drawn 

'^Manuscript  Journal  of  Proceedings,  State  Library,  160. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


Ill 


the  evidence  was  found  to  be  most  satisfactory.  On  this  line 
there  were  no  other  “highlands.”  ^ 

But  especially  was  Mr.  Bradley  forceful  in  the  historical  part 
of  his  argument.  In  this  he  referred  to  the  British  conquest  of 
Canada  from  the  Frengh  in  1763,  when  the  boundary  of  Lower 
Canada,  fixed  by  a royal  proclamation,  was  a line  which  “cross- 
ing the  river  St.  Lawrence  and  Lake  Champlain  in  forty-five 
degrees  of  north  latitude,”  passed  “along  the  highlands  which 
divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  said  river  St. 
Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  sea,”  giving  to  the 
inhabitants  near  the  St.  Lawrence,  on  its  southern  side,  the  lands 
watered  by  its  tributary  streams.  Previous  to  this  proclamation, 
continued  the  agent,  “the  British  provinces  to  the  south,  advanced 
their  just  claims  to  a much  higher  extent,  while  on  the  other  hand 
the  pretensions  of  the  French  government  were  carried  far  below 
the  limits  of  their  respective  charters.  It  was  evidently  the  inten- 
tion of  the  British  government  by  this  proclamation,  to  make  such 
an  arrangement  of  the  boundary,  that  precisely  the  section  of 
country  lying  below  the  sources  of  the  streams  which  empty  them- 
selves into  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  no  more,  should  be  placed  under 
the  provincial  government  established  on  the  banks  of  that  river.  ’ ’ ^ 
The  argument  of  the  British  agent,  Mr.  Chipman,  was  largely 
directed  to  a consideration  of  the  intention  of  the  negotiators  of 
the  treaty  of  1783  in  their  description  of  the  northeastern  bound- 
ary. Here,  in  this  description  as  he  clearly  saw,  the  American 
case  found  its  stronghold,  and  unless  it  could  be  overthrown,  or  in 
some  way  rendered  of  no  effect,  the  British  case,  as  now  pre- 
sented, had  no  hope  of  success.  The  “highlands,”  he  said,  must 
be  sought  elsewhere,  and  the  treat3r  description  must  be  inter- 
preted by  its  intentions.  One  of  these,  he  claimed,  was  to  make 
a boundary  on  the  basis  of  mutual  convenience  and  reciprocal 
advantage.  It  was  not  intended  by  the  treaty  to  cut  off  the 

^Manuscript  of  Opening  Argument  of  the  Ageyit  of  the  United  States,  State 
Library,  II,  26-30. 

*Ib.,  State  Library,  48-52. 


112 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


due  north  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River;  and  here  also 
maritime  provinces  from  easy  communication  with  Quebec  and 
Montreal.  Furthermore,  it  was  the  intention  of  the  negotiators  to 
give  each  nation  the  sources  of  the  rivers  emptying  through  its  ter- 
ritory, and  hence,  as  the  St.  John  was  to  flow  through  British 
territory,  the  boundary  must  lie  south  of  it.  The  word  ^‘high- 
lands” in  the  treaty,  also,  was  interpreted  as  signifying  “well 
known  very  elevated  and  conspicuous  heights  of  land,”  such  as 
Mars  Hill  and  other  hills  or  mountains  at  points  w'estward  along 
the  line  of  the  British  claim,  and  therefore  could  not  mean  any 
watershed  reached  by  a directly  north  line  from  the  source  of  the 
St.  Croix  river,  and  dividing  the  waters  emptying  into  the  river 
St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.” 

The  following,  concerning  Mr.  Chipman’s  argument,  is  a correct 
as  well  as  a concise  statement.  “The  British  agent  claimed  Mars 
Hill  as  the  desired  point;  and  while  it  must  be  admitted  that  he 
supported  it  by  remarkable  dexterity  of  reasoning,  it  must  also  be 
conceded  that  he  did  not  exceed  the  requirements  of  his  preten- 
sions. Mars  Hill  is  in  every  direction  at  least  a hundred  miles 
distant  from  the  sources  of  any  of  the  rivers  that  empty  into  the 
River  St.  Lawrence.  The  only  streams  it  divides  are  two  small 
tributaries  of  the  River  St.  John,  which  flows  into  the  Bay  of 
Fundy.  So  that,  according  to  the  British  agent’s  contention  in 
regard  to  the  Restigouche,  Mars  Hill  does  not  divide  rivers  fall- 
ing either  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  or  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 
It  was  pre-eminent  for  fulfilling  none  of  the  conditions  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  except,  perhaps,  that  it  was  a high  elevation.”  ^ 

Inasmuch  as  an  earnest  wish  had  been  expressed  on  the  part  of 
both  governments  that  the  tedious  and  expensive  work  of  the 
commission  should  be  brought  to  a close  with  all  practicable  dis- 
patch, the  British  agent  declared  his  willingness  to  submit  to  the 
decision  of  the  board  without  further  argument  unless  the  agent 
for  the  United  States  should  ask  for  an  added  hearing.  This  the 
latter  requested,  not  because  new  positions  which  could  not  have 

^ Moore,  Ijiternational  Arbitrations,  I,  78. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


113 


been  anticipated  had  been  taken  by  the  British  agent,  he  said,  but 
because  reference  had  been  made  to  documents  not  before  the 
commissioners  premously,  and  particularly  papers  which  were 
understood  by  the  agents  to  have  been  withdrawn  at  the  request 
of  his  Britannic  Majesty.^ 

Other  memorials  followed,  and  on  August  14,  1821,  the  board 
adjourned  to  the  20th  of  September,  when  more  memorials  were 
presented  and  read.  On  September  27th  there  were  added  argu- 
ments, and  also  on  the  29th.  At  the  meeting  on  October  2nd,  the 
commissioners  passed  an  order  that  all  the  reports  and  plans 
alluded  to  in  the  memorials  of  September  26th,  27th,  and  29th, 
should  be  filed  by  the  secretary  except  the  two  general  maps,  and 
it  was  added:  “On  the  subject  of  the  said  general  maps  no  order 
allowing  them  to  be  filed  is  made  as  the  commissioners  differ  in 
opinion,  Commissioner  Barclay  being  in  favor  of  allowing  the 
general  map  presented  by  his  Majesty’s  agent  to  be  filed  and  of 
excluding  that  presented  by  the  agent  of  the  United  States;  and 
Commissioner  Van  Ness  being  of  the  opinion  that  both  of  said 
general  maps  ought  to  be  filed,  or  neither  of  them.  On  the  ques- 
tion of  going  into  an  examination  at  this  time  of  the  surveyors, 
under  oath,  the  commissioners  differ  in  opinion.  Commissioner 
Barclay  being  in  favor  of  that  course  and  Commissioner  Van  Ness 
against  it.”  ^ 

This  record  in  the  journal  foreshadowed  the  hopelessness  of 
any  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  commissioners  of  the  two 
governments.  With  only  a deadlock  in  prospect,  argument 
had  become  a weariness.  Under  these  circumstances  the  board 
adjourned  October  4,  1821,  to  meet  in  the  city  of  New'  York  on 
the  first  Monday  in  April,  1822.® 

At  this  adjourned  meeting  some  time  was  spent  in  examining 
accounts,  etc.  On  April  13th  the  commissioners  filed  notes  in 

'^Manuscript  Journal  of  Proceedings , State  Library,  239,  240. 

Ub.,  304. 

^Ib.,  State  Librar}’,  309. 

8 


114  MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 

which  October  21,  1821,  they  had  recorded  their  differing  opin- 
ions, and  which  were  now  placed  in  the  journal  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  commission.  Colonel  Barclay,  on  the  question  as  to  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  took  the  position  that  the  point 
ought  to  be  established  at  or  near  Mars  Hill,  about  forty  miles  on 
a due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  and  about 
thirty-seven  miles  south  of  the  river  St.  John.  On  the  question 
as  to  the  northwesternmost  head  of  the  Connecticut  River  he  was 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is  at  the  northwesternmost  stream  which 
empties  into  the  third  lake  of  the  Connecticut  River,  north  of 
the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latitude.  Mr.  Van  Ness  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  ought  to  be  fixed 
at  a place  one  hundred  and  forty-four  miles  due  north  from  the 
source  of  the  river  St.  Croix;  and  about  sixty-six  miles  north  of 
the  river  St.  John.  On  the  question  as  to  the  northwesternmost 
head  of  the  Connecticut  River,  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the 
head  should  be  established  at  the  head  of  the  west  branch  of 
Indian  Stream. 

On  the  same  day  the  commissioners,  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  delivered  to  the  agents  of  the 
respective  governments  duplicates  of  their  reports,  accounts  and 
proceedings,  and  these  were  transmitted  to  the  two  governments 
interested. 

It  was  in  order  that  the  commissioners  might  have  time  for  the 
preparation  of  these  reports  that  the  board  adjourned  October  4, 
1821.  The  reports  are  on  file  in  the  ofl&ce  of  the  secretary  of 
state  in  Washington,  but  as  yet  they  have  not  been  published  in 
full.  The  disagreement  of  the  commissioners  was  not  unex- 
pected, but  it  was  disappointing.  Mr.  Adams  regarded  it  as 
unfortunate,  as  it  made  a settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy 
more  difficult  than  ever.  The  report  of  the  British  commissioner, 
he  said,  was  a labored  attempt  to  support  the  position  taken  by 
the  British  agent,  “in  which  ingenuity  maintains  an  endless  argu- 
ment against  common  sense.”  ^ Mr.  Gallatin,  who  had  occasion 


'^American  State  Papers,  V,  526. 


THE  SEARCH  FOR  THE  HIGHLANDS. 


115 


to  examine  the  reports  carefully,  considered  that  of  Mr.  Van  Ness 
as  “conclusive  and  remarkably  well-drawn,”  while  he  character- 
ized that  of  Colonel  Barclay  as  “scandalous.”  Mr.  Gallatin’s 
mention  of  the  argument  of  the  British  agent,  Mr.  Chipman,  was 
even  more  severe,  declaring  it  “a  tissue  of  unfounded  assertions 
and  glaring  sophistry.”  Ganong,  admitting  the  rightfulness  of 
the  American  claim  as  based  on  the  description  of  the  boundary 
in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  therefore  finding  no  ground  for  identi- 
fying Mars  Hill  with  the  highlands  of  the  treaty,  objects  to  Mr. 
Gallatin’s  use  of  the  words  “unfounded  assertions”  as  too  harsh, 
Mr.  Chipman  being  considered  as  very  careful  in  his  “statement 
of  fact.”  As  to  the  “sophistries,”  however,  he  frankly  says  the 
judgment  is  correct.  “Chipman  did  indulge  in  sophistries,  but 
it  was  that  or  nothing.  He  was  an  advocate  with  a very  weak 
case  to  defend.”  He  had  no  case  whatever,  and  was  using  his 
“wits,”  allowing  “his  imagination  free  play”  in  the  endeavor  to 
make  a case.^ 

With  the  filing  of  the  reports  of  the  commissioners,  the  long, 
laborious  and  expensive  work  of  the  commission  came  to  an  end, 
and  the  commissioners,  having  entered  upon  the  journal  their 
failure  to  agree,  voted  to  adjourn,  subject,  however,  “to  the  pleas- 
ure of  the  two  governments  whether  in  any  event  to  hold  any 
further  meetings  or  perform  any  further  services.”^  Further 
services  were  not  requested. 

'^Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  Proceedings  of  Royal  Society  of  Canada, 
1901-1902,  330. 

‘^Manuscript  Journal  of  Proceedings,  State  Library,  315-320. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Maine  Enters  the  Boundary  Controversy. 

AINE  became  a member  of  the  Eederal  Union  March  15, 
1820,  in  accordance  with  an  act  of  Congress  passed  on 
March  3rd.  Next  to  the  general  government,  Massa- 
chusetts hitherto  had  manifested  the  deepest  interest  of 
any  of  the  states  in  the  boundary  controversy.  This  was  because 
of  her  geographical  position,  and  her  vigilance  in  matters  pertain- 
ing to  her  territorial  rights.  Maine,  now,  took  the  place  of 
Massachusetts,  exhibiting  soon  even  a keener  interest  in  the  con- 
test than  the  old  commonwealth. 

While  Maine  was  still  a part  of  Massachusetts  something 
already  had  been  accomplished  in  bringing  American  settlers  into 
the  Madawaska  region.  September  5,  1818,  a French  resident  at 
Madawaska  informed  the  New  Brunswick  authorities  that  several 
American  families  from  the  Kennebec  River  had  made  their  way 
thither  and  established  themselves,  claiming  that  they  were  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  and  not  that  of  New  Bruns- 
wick.^ This  letter  came  into  the  hands  of  the  lieutenant  governor 
of  the  province,  who  directed  the  attorney  general  to  obtain  more 
particular  information.  Accordingly,  January  9,  1819,  the  in- 
formant was  asked  to  obtain  the  names  of  American  citizens,  who 
during  the  past  eight  months  had  taken  up  their  residence  in 
the  Madawaska  settlement,  or  anywhere  near  it,  “westward 
of  the  line  of  experiment  lately  run  across  the  river  St.  John,  and 
the  particular  places  where  they  may  have  set  themselves  down.” 
The  reply  under  date  of  February  20,  1819,  was  as  follows: 
“Captain  Nathan  Baker  ^ came  to  Madawaska  twelve  months  ago. 

American  State  Papers,  VI,  849. 

^John  Baker,  another  American  who  was  to  become  more  prominently 
identified  with  the  beginnings  of  the  American  settlement  in  the  Madawaska 
region,  was  a brother  of  Nathan  Baker,  and  in  1820  followed  him  into  that 
country  and  was  connected  with  him  in  lumbering. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


117 


At  that  time  he  wished  to  introduce  the  laws  of  the  States; 
brought  a magistrate  along  with  him  from  the  States  to  form  a 
corporation,  and  desired  my  concurrence.  I told  him  I would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  such  matters  before  the  line  was  settled 
between  the  British  government  and  the  States.  I likewise  told 
the  rest  of  the  French  settlers  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  him 
about  such  matters,  which  they  did.  In  August  last  he  brought 
his  wife  and  family  from  Kennebec  river,  and  took  up  his  resi- 
dence in  the  upper  settlement  of  Madawaska,  and  built  a house. 
In  the  beginning  of  October  he  began  to  lumber,  and  with  five 
men  took  a range  for  wood  through  ten  lots,  on  all  of  which  there 
are  settlers,  and  some  of  them  established  fifteen  years  ago,  and 
have  made  considerable  improvements.  Some  of  the  inhabitants 
forbade  him  to  cut  wood  upon  their  lots;  he  said  it  did  not  belong 
to  them,  but  to  the  States.  He  has  already  about  ten  or  twelve 
hundred  tons  of  timber,  a great  part  of  which  I saw  on  the  19th 
of  February,  upon  the  banks  of  the  river  St.  John  on  the  north 
side.  He  appears  to  me  to  be  a man  who  takes  much  upon  him. 
In  August  last  Captain  Flecher  came  from  the  States  and  entered 
into  partnership  with  him  in  the  lumber  trade.  John  Herford 
[Harford]  came  from  the  States  with  his  wife  and  family  at  the 
same  time,  took  up  his  residence  in  the  upper  settlement  of  Mad- 
awaska, built  a house,  and  is  carrying  on  improvements  on  his 
land.  Likewise  his  son,  George  Herford,  with  his  wife  and 

family In  the  last  of  September,  Esquire  Johnson’s  son, 

one  of  the  American  surveyors,  made  a survey  upon  the  north 
side  of  the  river  St.  John,  beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mada- 
waska river,  up  to  the  river  St.  Francis;  he  measured  the  French 
settlement  at  the  same  time.  ’ ’ ' 

The  first  governor  of  Maine,  William  King,*  lost  no  time  in 
calling  the  attention  of  the  members  of  the  first  Legislature  of  the 
state  to  boundary  considerations.  In  his  message  opening  the 

'^American  State  Papers,  VI,  849,  850. 

^He  was  the  third  son  of  Richard  King,  of  Scarborough,  Maine,  and  was 
born  in  that  town  February  9,  1768.  Early  devoting  himself  to  large  business 
interests,  he  made  his  residence  in  Bath.  During  the  war  of  1812-15,  without 


118 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


session  he  said  he  was  unable  to  state  the  progress  that  had  been 
made  under  the  fifth  article  of  the  British  treaty  in  settling  the 
eastern  and  northern  boundary  of  the  state.  As  Maine  and  Mas- 
sachusetts had  so  deep  an  interest  in  the  settlement  of  these 
boundaries,  it  would  have  been  proper,  he  suggested,  if  the  agent, 
appointed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  had  been  taken  from 
one  of  these  two  states.  Under  existing  circumstances  he  asked 
the  Legislature  to  consider  whether  the  interest  of  the  state  did 
not  require  the  adoption  of  such  arrangements  as  were  best  calcu- 
lated to  afford  the  present  agent  such  information  in  relation  to 
this  important  subject  as  the  people  of  Maine  had  it  in  their  power 
to  ^ive.^  It  is  not  difficult  to  find  in  this  suggestion  an  intimation 
that  Mr.  Bradley,  the  agent  of  the  United  States,  in  conducting 
its  case  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  was  not  equal 
to  the  demands  of  the  task  to  which  he  had  been  assigned. 

Governor  King’s  allusion  in  his  message  to  the  boundary  con- 
troversy did  not  escape  the  notice  of  Ward  Chipman,  the  British 
agent,  who  in  a letter  June  24,  1820,  addressed  to  Henry  Gould- 
burn,^  made  this  the  closing  paragraph:  “it  appears  by  the  mes- 
sage of  the  governor  recently  communicated  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  new  State  of  Maine  (an  extract  from  which  I have  the  honor 
herewith  to  transmit)  that  this  State  is  taking  a deeper  interest 
than  has  been  hitherto  expressed  in  this  District,  in  the  result  of 
the  decision  to  be  made  by  the  commissioners  under  this  article 
of  the  treaty,  so  that  every  effort  may  be  expected  from  this  quar- 

any  military  experience,  he  was  commissioned  a major  general  of  Massachu- 
setts militia,  in  recognition  of  his  forceful  administrative  qualities.  He  was 
a prominent  member  of  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts.  An  ardent  advo- 
cate of  the  separation  of  Maine  from  Massachusetts,  he  presided  over  the  con- 
vention that  framed  the  constitution  of  the  new  state.  As  govermor  of  Maine, 
he  received  21,083  votes  out  of  the  22,014  that  were  cast.  In  his  service  as 
governor,  and  in  all  other  positions  to  which  he  was  called,  he  added  honor 
to  the  family  name,  and  died  in  Bath,  Maine,  June  17,  1852. 

'^Message  to  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  June  2,  1820,  14. 

^ He  was  connected  with  the  Foreign  Office  in  London  as  under  secretary 
for  the  colonies. 


William  King. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


119 


ter  to  defeat  the  just  claims  on  the  part  of  his  Majesty  upon  the 
present  occasion.  ” ^ 

The  British  agent  rightly  apprehended  the  significance  of  the 
words  cited  from  Governor’s  King’s  message  as  indicating  a 
stronger  American  opposition  to  British  boundary  claims  than 
had  characterized  the  management  of  the  case  of  the  United  States 
hitherto.  It  was  not  the  just,  but  the  unjust,  claims  of  Great 
Britain,  however,  that  Governor  King  had  in  view  in  his  mes- 
sage, and  in  opposition  to  which  he  proposed  the  adoption  of 
such  measures  by  the  Uegislature  as  would  adequately  safeguard 
Maine’s  territorial  rights.  The  members  of  the  Legislature  in 
their  consideration  of  boundary  matters  saw  the  importance  of 
bringing  the  state  as  soon  as  possible  into  very  close  relations 
with  the  national  government;  and  on  June  12th,  the  following 
resolve^  was  adopted:  '’^Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  State 
be  requested  to  transmit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  a 
copy  of  this  resolve,  accompanied  with  such  representations  in 
relation  to  this  subject  as  he  shall  think  proper  and  best  calcu- 
lated to  effect  the  object.  And  also  that  he  be  authorized  and 
requested  to  make  such  communications  to  the  Governor  of  Mas- 
sachusetts on  this  subject  as  he  shall  deem  necessary.”  ® 

The  governor  complied  with  the  request  of  the  Legislature  and 
transmitted  to  the  president  a copy  of  the  resolve.  In  this  letter 
of  transmission  he  said:  “When  it  is  considered  that  Massachu- 
setts and  Maine  have  the  right  of  soil,  that  Maine  has  also  a 
State  jurisdiction,  that  the  people  here  have  not  the  honor  of  an 
acquaintance  either  with  the  commissioner  or  agent,  and  have  not 
been  advised  of  any  reason  for  the  delay  to  the  present  time,  it 

^Ward  Chipman  MSS.,  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society.  The 
above  extract  from  Governor  King’s  message  was  also  inclosed  in  a copy  of 
Mr.  Chipman’s  letter  to  Mr.  Gouldburn. 

^The  reference  in  the  resolve  to  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  was  required 
inasmuch  as  by  the  act  of  separation  one-half  of  all  the  lands  within  the  Dis- 
trict of  Maine  that  belonged  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  still 
remained  in  the  possession  of  that  state. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  1820,  I,  23. 


120 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


will  not  be  considered  a matter  of  surprise  that  their  extreme 
solicitude  should  be  such  as  to  render  desirable  information  on  a 
subject  so  generally  interesting.”  ‘ But  the  desired  information, 
said  the  governor,  was  not  forthcoming.  A letter  from  the  secre- 
tary of  state  in  reply  stated  that  while  it  was  expected  that  a final 
decision  of  all  points  in  the  boundary  controversy  would  be 
reached  in  October,  1820,  the  expectation  had  not  been  realized. 
Accordingly,  he  had  requested  the  Maine  senators  in  Congress  to 
confer  with  the  boundary  commissioners  as  they  passed  through 
New  York  on  their  way  to  Washington.  They  endeavored  so  to 
do,  but  not  finding  the  commissioners,  they  had  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Bradley,  the  American  agent.  From  his  statement  and 
from  other  sources,  said  the  governor,  all  reasonable  hope  of  a 
speedy  adjustment  of  the  boundary  controversy  had  vanished, 
“in  the  meantime,”  he  added,  ‘‘it  rests  with  the  Legislature  to 
devise  such  measures  as  are  best  calculated  to  preserve  the  best 
interests  of  the  State,  and  protect  it  from  a system  of  pillage 
countenanced  by  the  claims  of  pretended  title  and  rendered  doubly 
active  by  the  wholesome  provisions  of  our  navigation  laws.”^ 

As  stated  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  the  commission- 
ers under  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  finding  an  agree- 
ment impossible,  exchanged  a declaration  of  their  disagreement 
October  4,  1821,  and  adjourned  until  the  following  April.  On 
reassembling  then,  having  prepared  their  reports,  in  accordance 
with  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  they  presented  the  same  for 
transmission  to  the  two  governments,  and  the  commission  came 
to  an  end.  According  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  therefore, 
the  commissioners  having  failed  to  render  a decision,  it  now 
became  the  duty  of  the  two  governments  to  refer  their  reports  “to 
some  friendly  sovereign  or  state  to  be  then  named  for  the  pur- 
pose.” Mr.  Adams,  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States, 
with  the  provision  of  the  treaty  in  mind,  had  an  interview  with 
Stratford  Canning,  the  British  minister  in  Washington,  and  sug- 
gested that  the  United  States  would  nominate  as  such  a friendly 

1 Deane,  Report  Relating  to  the  New  England  Boundary,  1828,  45. 

‘^Message  of  Governor  King,  January  11,  1821,  4,  5. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


121 


sovereign  the  emperor  of  Russia.  Mr.  Canning  suggested  that 
the  king  of  the  Netherlands  would  be  acceptable  to  Great  Britain. 
To  this  suggestion  the  secretary  of  state  strongly  objected, 
reminding  the  British  minister  of  the  obligations  of  the  king  of 
the  Netherlands  to  Great  Britain.  Evidently  on  both  sides  it  was 
soon  discovered  that  the  way  of  harmony  in  boundary  considera- 
tions, certainly  for  the  time,  was  not  to  be  looked  for  in  that 
direction.  Mr.  Adams,  too,  clearly  saw,  from  an  examination  of 
the  reports,  documents  and  arguments  deposited  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state  by  the  disagreeing  commissioners,  that  the  questions 
to  be  submitted  to  a friendly  sovereign  involved  much  more  than 
the  interpretation  of  a few  words  in  an  article  of  a treaty.  Indeed, 
it  seemed  to  him  that  it  would  be  scarcely  within  the  bounds  of 
respectful  decency  to  ask  such  a sovereign  to  pronounce,  between 
two  such  nations  as  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  upon 
differences  having  reference  to  an  extended  boundary  line,  in  a 
region  little  known  except  by  Indians,  and  giving  rise  to  questions 
which  their  own  commissioners,  aided  by  surveyors,  geographers, 
astronomers  and  agents,  after  long  periods  of  labor  and  investiga- 
tion devoted  entirely  to  that  object,  had  not  been  able  to  settle. 
Out  of  such  considerations  a growing  conviction  seems  to  have 
found  expression  on  this  side  of  the  sea  that  the  differences 
between  the  two  countries  could  best  be  adjusted  by  negotiation.^ 
But  still  matters  were  allowed  to  drift,  the  delay  naturally 
being  the  occasion  of  increasing  irritation  in  the  boundary  region, 
because  of  encroachments  and  efforts  to  resist  such  encroachments. 
It  having  been  reported  to  the  governor  of  Maine  that  British 
subjects  were  trespassing  upon  valuable  timber  lands  belonging  to 
the  state.  Governor  King  in  February,  1822,  with  the  advice  of 
the  council,  appointed  Benjamin  J.  Porter,  of  Topsham,  an  agent 
of  the  state  with  reference  to  such  encroachments;  and  directed 
him  to  proceed  to  the  Aroostook  region  and  notify  persons  tres- 
passing on  timber  lands  west  of  the  due  north  line  from  the  sources 

1 Manuscript  copy  of  letter  of  John  Quincy  Adams  to  Richard  Rush,  United 
States  minister  in  London,  dated  June  25,  1823.  This  copy  was  sent  to  Gov- 
ernor Parris,  and  is  now  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 


122 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  the  highlands,  mentioned  in  the  treaty 
of  1783,  that  if  they  would  pay  a proper  consideration  for  the 
timber  they  had  cut  and  desist  from  any  further  depredation  on 
that  part  of  Maine  territory,  he  might  make  settlement  on  those 
terms.  If  they  declined,  he  was  directed  to  proceed  to  Houlton 
plantation  and  obtain  such  assistance  as  in  his  judgment  would 
be  required,  in  order  to  take  the  trespassers  and  their  teams  to 
Houlton  and  keep  them  until  the  governor  could  be  advised  con- 
cerning the  measures  adopted.  The  agent  followed  his  directions, 
made  a settlement  with  the  trespassing  British  subjects,  and 
received  from  them  the  required  assurances  as  to  their  withdrawal 
and  abandonment  of  such  encroachments.* 

At  the  same  time  increasing  pressure  was  brought  upon  the 
national  government  for  more  aggressive  action  in  securing  a set- 
tlement of  the  boundary  controversy;  and  President  Madison  in 
his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  2,  1823,  after  stating 
the  difficulty  if  not  the  impossibility  of  finding  any  friendly  sov- 
ereign to  perform  the  required  service,  announced  that  a proposal, 
had  been  made  by  the  United  States  and  acceded  to  by  Great 
Britain,  to  endeavor  to  establish  the  boundary  by  amicable  nego- 
tiation.^ Yet,  though  the  boundary  continued  to  be  a matter  of 
government  consideration  throughout  the  following  year,  the 
president,  in  his  annual  message  near  the  close  of  1824,  could  only 
say:  “Both  governments  having  agreed  to  establish  that  boundary 
by  amicable  negotiation  between  them,  it  is  hoped  that  it  may  be 
satisfactorily  adjusted  in  that  mode.”  ® 

Notwithstanding  this  expression  of  hope  by  the  president,  how- 
ever, boundary  considerations  remained  in  abeyance.  In  his 
annual  message  to  the  Legislature  in  January,  1825,  Governor 
Parris,*  who  evidently  had  shared  the  general  disappointment  in 

^American  State  Papers,  VI,  843. 

"^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II,  208. 

®Ib.,  II,  250. 

‘‘Albion  Keith  Parris  was  born  in  Hebron,  Maine,  January  1,  1778.  He 
received  bis  college  training  at  Dartmouth,  graduating  in  1806,  and  was 
admitted  to  the  Cumberland  bar  in  1809.  He  was  a member  of  Congress  at 


Albion  K.  Parris 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


123 


Maine  because  of  diplomatic  delays  in  boundary  matters,  made 
mention  of  the  importance  of  greater  dispatch  in  bringing  the 
negotiations  to  completion.  From  different  sources,  he  said, 
information  was  reaching  him  with  reference  to  depredations  of 
considerable  extent  on  timber  lands  upon  the  Aroostook,  Mada- 
awaska  and  other  streams  emptying  into  the  St.  John  River,  and 
he  believed  that  unless  energetic  measures  were  adopted  by  the 
Legislature  a large  portion  of  the  valuable  timber  of  this  region 
would  soon  be  removed.^ 

In  1825,  Governor  Parris  directed  Mr.  James  Irish  to  proceed 
to  the  Aroostook  region,  and  seize  all  timber  found  in  the  posses- 
sion of  trespassers  on  the  Aroostook  River  west  of  the  due  north 
line  from  the  sources  of  the  St.  Croix.  The  agent’s  report,  and 
other  reports  that  reached  the  governor,  were  laid  before  the 
Legislative  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  January  18,  1825.  In 
presenting  its  report,  the  committee  having  called  attention  to 
lumber  depredations  on  lands  through  which  the  Aroostook  and 
Madawaska  rivers  flowed,  urged  the  adoption  of  measures  for 
securing  satisfaction  for  the  past  and  security  for  the  future. 
These  encroachments,  it  was  believed,  had  the  sanction  of  the 
Province  of  New  Brunswick.  Permits  and  licenses  authorized 
these  encroachments.  British  settlers,  too,  allured  by  liberal 
encouragement,  were  establishing  themselves  upon  these  valuable 
lands  with  the  manifest  purpose  thus  to  seize  and  to  hold  the 
same  as  British  territory.  But  to  employ  a military  force  for  the 
removal  of  persons  engaged  in  these  encroachments  would  be 
unavailing  unless  it  should  be  retained  until  the  boundary  contro- 
versy was  settled.  Besides,  the  maintenance  of  such  a force 

twenty-eight,  judge  of  the  United  States  district  court  at  thirty,  and  governor 
of  Maine  at  thirty-three,  serving  five  years  by  successive  elections.  In  1827, 
before  the  close  of  his  service  as  governor,  he  was  elected  a member  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States;  but  in  June,  1828,  he  resigned  and  accepted  an 
appointment  as  associate  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  Maine.  He  died  in 
Portland,  February  11,  1857,  greatly  honored.  He  was  the  first  president  of 
the  Maine  Historical  Society. 

Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  385,  386. 


124 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


would  require  great  expenditures  and  invoh^e  the  national  gov- 
ernment; and  the  committee  considered  such  a course  as  ques- 
tionable without  the  concurrence  of  Massachusetts  and  until  after 
the  result  of  the  pending  negotiations  should  be  known. ^ 

The  committee  accordingly  submitted  resolves,  which  were 
adopted  January  24th,  requesting  the  governor  to  correspond  with 
the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick  in  order  to  ascertain  if 
the  government  of  that  province  had  authorized  any  persons  to 
cut  timber  upon  lands  west  of  the  boundary  line  as  already  deter- 
mined by  the  St.  Croix  commission,  or  to  settle  upon  such  lands. 
Also  the  land  agent  of  the  state  was  directed  to  ascertain  the 
extent  of  these  depredations.  The  attorney  general,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  such  person  or  persons  as  should  be  appointed  by  the 
commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  was  instructed  to  commence 
action  at  once  against  any  persons  found  trespassing  upon  lands 
jointly  owned  by  the  two  states,  the  expense  to  be  borne  by  them 
equally.  Also  the  governor  was  directed  to  furnish  the  governor 
of  Massachusetts  with  such  information  concerning  these  depre- 
dations as  came  into  his  possession.  The  same  information,  and 
the  present  action  of  the  Legislature,  the  governor  was  instructed 
to  forward  to  the  Maine  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress.^ 

Having  ascertained  that  there  were  a number  of  American  set- 
tlers on  the  undivided  public  lands  on  the  St.  John  and  Mada- 
waska  rivers,  some  of  whom  had  resided  there  more  than  thirty 
years,  the  Legislature  passed  another  resolve,  February  26,  1825, 
authorizing  the  land  agent  of  the  state,  in  conjunction  with  such 
an  agent  appointed  for  that  purpose  by  the  commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  “to  make  and  execute  good  and  sufficient  deeds” 
conveying  to  such  settlers  in  actual  possession  one  hundred  acres 
each  of  land  possessed  by  them,  including  such  improvements  as 
they  had  made,  on  payment  of  five  dollars  to  the  state,  and  the 
expense  of  surveying  the  same.®  Thus  authorized,  the  agents  in 

1 Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  395,  396. 

Mb.,  396,  397. 

Mb.,  438. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


125 


the  autumn  of  1825  made  their  way  to  the  Madawaska  settlement, 
thence  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mariumpticook,  and  surv’eyed  and 
conveyed  to  John  Baker  and  James  Bacon,  citizens  of  Maine,  two 
lots  of  land  of  one  hundred  acres  each,  on  the  St.  John  River, 
and  above  the  French  neutrals.  At  this  time  there  was  no  settle- 
ment within  several  miles  of  their  location.  The  land  agents 
posted  notices,  announcing  their  authorit3^  and  their  readiness  to 
give  deeds  in  accordance  with  the  legislative  resolves,  and  several 
such  applications  were  made.^  October  10th,  James  Bacon  was 
authorized  by  these  agents  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  timber  that 
should  be  cut  upon  the  St.  John  River  in  the  wdnter  following 
and  also  upon  the  several  streams  and  rivers  emptying  into  the 
St.  John  above  Grand  Falls.  In  case  “permits”  were  granted  by 
them,  they  were  to  settle  wdth  the  holders  according  to  previous 
agreement;  but  from  persons  who  had  presumed  to  cut  without 
their  permission,  payment  was  to  be  required.  If  this  was 
refused,  the  timber  was  to  be  seized  and  sold  at  public  auction  for 
the  benefit  of  the  two  states,  first  giving  thirty  days’  public  notice 
of  the  time  and  place  of  sale.^ 

The  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick,  having  complained 
to  the  British  minister  in  Washington  of  the  actions  of  these 
agents,  the  complaint  reached  Governor  Parris  through  Mr.  Clay, 
the  secretary  of  state,  who,  November  23,  1825,  called  upon  the 
governor  for  the  facts  concerning  the  transactions  mentioned. 
The  correspondence  that  followed  indicated  a spirit  of  forbearance 
and  moderation  on  the  part  of  both  governments,  and  there  are 
on  record  no  further  references  to  the  proceedings  of  which  com- 
plaint was  made.® 

At  the  opening  of  the  year  1826,  the  situation,  so  far  as  bound- 
ary matters  were  concerned,  was  exceedingly  discouraging. 
John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  was  now  president  of  the 
United  States,  but  in  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress,  while 

Deatie's  Report  to  the  Maine  Legislature,  1828,  48,  49. 

“^American  State  Papers,  VI,  845. 

^Manuscript  Correspondence  and  Documents,  Northeastern  Boundary, 
State  Library,  I,  1-17. 


126 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


he  expressed  pleasure  at  “the  continuance  and  increase  of  the 
mutual  confidence  and  cordiality  by  which  the  adjustment  of 
many  points  of  difference  had  already  been  effected”  ^ with  Great 
Britain,  he  made  no  reference  whatever  to  boundary  considera- 
tions. It  was  understood,  however,  that  negotiations  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  were  still  in  progress;  and 
Governor  Parris,  in  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature,  urged 
upon  the  members  of  the  Legislature  the  importance  of  securing 
information  of  all  kinds  bearing  upon  the  subject.  “More  than 
ten  years,”  he  said,  “have  elapsed  since  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  which  provides  for  ascertaining  and  determining  this 
boundary,”  yet  during  all  this  time  those  most  interested  in  the 
success  of  the  British  claim  had  not  been  inactive  “in  acquiring 
and  furnishing  their  government  with  a knowledge  of  every  fact 
important  for  its  support.”^  Certainly,  activity  on  Maine’s  part, 
and  in  the  same  direction,  was  most  desirable. 

This  part  of  the  governor’s  message  was  referred  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  joint  committee  on  state  lands.  In  their  report,®  while 
strongly  deprecating  any  reference  of  boundary  matters  to  some 
friendly  sovereign  as  a procedure  that  should  be  avoided  if  possi- 
ble, the  committee  found  little  reason  to  expect  from  the  British 
government  any  just  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  people  of 
Maine,  and  discovered  no  evidence  of  an  early  settlement  of  a 
wearisome  contention.  But  notwithstanding  this  expression  of 
discouragement,  and  in  accordance  with  the  governor’s  call  for 
renewed  activity,  they  urged  the  collection  of  maps,  surveys,  doc- 
uments and  publications  of  all  kinds  bearing  upon  the  questions 
in  dispute  between  the  two  countries  and  suggested  an  appropria- 
tion of  five  hundred  dollars  to  carry  into  effect  a resolve  authoriz- 
ing such  action. ‘ 

This  effort  of  the  state  to  obtain  information  from  the  national 

1 December  6,  1825.  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II,  300. 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  472,  473. 

® It  was  prepared  by  Reuel  Williams  of  Augusta. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  480-482. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


127 


government  seems  to  have  been  a failure.  A very  vague  allusion 
to  the  matter  is  made  by  Governor  Enoch  Lincoln^  in  his  first 
annual  message,  in  which  he  referred  to  the  effort  of  his  prede- 
cessor to  obtain  the  boundary  documents  contemplated  by  a resolve 
of  a former  Legislature.  In  a mention  of  the  dilatory  processes  of 
a negotiation  referring  to  the  boundary  matter,  the  governor 
expressed  the  hope  that  a regard  for  the  interests  of  the  state 
might  “urge  to  a conclusion  in  a reasonable  term.”  ^ 

This  part  of  the  governor’s  message,  and  also  a letter  from  the 
governor  containing  a letter  from  the  British  minister  in  Wash- 
ington to  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States,  were  referred 
to  a joint  select  committee,  which  made  a report  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, February  16,  1827.  In  this  report,  as  in  the  governor’s 
message,  there  was  an  indication  of  unexpressed  uneasiness  on 
the  part  of  the  people  of  Maine,  arising  from  a fear  that  the  gen- 
eral government  was  not  taking  that  deep  interest  in  the  boundary 
controversy  which  its  importance  from  territorial  considerations 
seemed  to  demand.  While  expressing  the  belief  that  the  United 
States  would  not,  under  any  circumstances,  allow  the  cession  of 
any  part  of  Maine  soil,  the  committee  add:  “We  can  anticipate 
only  one  class  of  events  which  would  vest  a right  in  the  general 
government  to  give  up  any  such  territory;  and  those  events  are 
such  only  which,  from  the  application  of  external  force,  would 
impair  the  national  compact  and  destroy  the  present  Union.  In 
any  other  case,  we  deny  the  right  of  the  government  of  the 

^ Enoch  Lincoln  was  born  in  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  December  28,  1788. 
He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1811,  and  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  profes- 
sion in  Salem;  but  in  1812  he  removed  to  Fryeburg,  Maine.  In  1817,  he  took 
up  his  residence  in  Paris,  and  soon  after  was  elected  a member  of  Congress, 
serving  eight  years.  He  was  then  elected  governor  of  Maine.  His  brother, 
Levi  Lincoln,  was  governor  of  Massachusetts.  Both  were  descendants  of 
Thomas  Elbridge,  who  having  inherited  the  Pemaquid  patent  came  to  this 
country  from  Bristol,  England,  about  1644,  and,  after  a short  residence  at 
Pemaquid,  removed  to  Marblehead,  Massachusetts,  where  he  married.  He 
died  on  the  island  of  Jamaica,  West  Indies,  in  1682,  aged  63. 

“^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  540,  541. 


128 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


United  States  to  yield  any  portion  of  our  territory  to  any  other 
independent  sovereignty,  unless  by  the  consent  of  the  State.”  ^ 

Following  the  presentation  of  this  report,  action  was  taken  by 
the  Legislature  requesting  the  governor  to  adopt  such  measures 
as  he  deemed  expedient,  both  in  acquiring  information  with  ref- 
erence to  boundary  matters  and  in  securing  a speedy  settlement  of 
the  dispute.  To  carry  this  resolve  into  effect.  Governor  Lincoln, 
March  20,  1827,  addressed  a letter  to  Henry  Clay,  then  the  secre- 
tary of  state  in  Washington.  It  was  a plea  for  an  open  or 
confidential  communication  of  the  information  requested  by  his 
predecessor,  based  upon  the  growing  importance  to  the  people  of 
Maine  of  all  matters  connected  with  the  boundary  controversy. 
The  report  and  resolve,  which  he  inclosed,  vindicated,  he  said, 
the  present  disposition  and  purposes  of  the  state  with  reference  to 
these  matters;  and  he  called  attention  to  the  great  benefit  that 
would  be  derived  by  an  anxious  people  from  an  early  determina- 
tion of  a harrassing  claim. ^ 

Evidently  the  letter  was  intended  to  indicate  a firmer  attitude 
on  the  part  of  the  state  with  reference  to  boundary  concerns. 
Hitherto  these  concerns  had  been  left  largely  under  the  direction 
of  the  general  government,  and  there  was  dissatisfaction  in  Maine 
with  the  results  which  thus  far  had  been  reached.  It  was  thought 
that  the  interests  of  the  state  had  not  been  sufficiently  safeguarded. 
Her  representatives  had  denied  the  right  of  the  national  govern- 
ment to  cede  any  portion  of  the  territory  of  Maine  without  Maine’s 
consent,  but  there  was  a lack  of  evidence  that  the  denial  had  made 
the  desired  impression  in  Washington.  In  brief,  the  governor 
believed  the  time  had  come  for  a more  energetic  and  determined 
procedure  in  whatev^er  negotiations  were  in  progress;  and  he  lost 
no  time  in  letting  it  be  known  that  Maine  was  aware  of  her  rights 
in  the  boundary  controversy  and  expected  to  be  considered  in 
matters  pertaining  to  it. 

In  his  reply  to  Governor  Lincoln’s  letter,  Mr.  Clay,  March  27, 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  576. 

Appetidix  No.  14  to  Dearie's  Report  to  the  Maine  Legislature,  1828,  25. 


Enoch  Lincoln 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


129 


1827,  after  explaining  his  course  in  withholding  information, 
offered  to  furnish  copies  of  all  surveys,  documents,  etc.,  with  the 
exception  of  the  reports  and  arguments  of  the  commissioners  and 
agents.  He  also  alluded  to  the  remarks  of  the  committee  of  the 
legislature  with  reference  to  the  acts  of  which  the  British  govern- 
ment complained  as  encroachments  upon  the  rights  of  New 
Brunswick;  and  while  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  president 
might  be  disposed  to  agree  with  the  committee  in  the  views  they 
expressed,  he  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  an  opposite  opinion 
was  entertained  by  Great  Britain,  and  he  reminded  the  governor 
that  if  each  party,  so  long  as  the  controversy  remained  unsettled, 
should  assert  title  to  the  same  territory  and  should  proceed  to 
take  possession  of  what  it  claimed,  an  immediate  collision  was 
inevitable.  In  accordance  with  assurances  given  through  the 
British  minister  in  Washington,  he  said,  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  at  the  request  of  the  United  States,  had  abstained  from 
any  new  acts  that  might  be  viewed  as  an  exercise  of  the  rights  of 
sovereignty  over  the  disputed  territory.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  president  deemed  it  advisable  that  there  should  be  on 
Maine’s  part  like  forbearance,  believing  that  it  would  have  a 
favorable  influence  in  securing  the  amicable  adjustment  of  exist- 
ing differences;  adding,  “it  is  worthy  also  of  consideration,  that, 
although  Maine  is  most,  she  is  not  the  only  state  interested  in 
the  settlement  of  this  question.”  ^ 

To  this  letter,  evidently  written  under  the  pressure  of  aroused 
and  disturbed  reflections.  Governor  Lincoln  made  a long  and  very 
frank  reply,  April  18,  1827.  In  it  he  said;  “All  that  forbear- 
ance, which  the  occasion  requires  will,  as  I may  safely  assure  you, 
be  exhibited  by  this  State.  While  her  extensive  and  valuable 
tracts  of  wild  land,  which  might  otherwise  soon  be  improved, 
remain  unsettled; — while  her  progress  in  wealth  and  power  is 
checked  in  a most  disastrous  manner,  at  the  period  most  favorable 
to  giving  an  impulse  to  her  prosperity; — while  many  important 

^Deane's  Report,  Appendix,  1828,  26,  27. 

9 


130 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


resources  are  left  dormant  during  the  pendency  of  the  dispute  as 
to  her  property  and  jurisdiction; — while  a frontier,  which  might 
soon  be  made  strong,  remains  unfortified  by  the  freemen  anxious 
to  occupy  it,  we  will,  I doubt  not,  forbear  on  the  request  of  the 
general  government,  until  the  imperious  call  of  duty  shall  sum- 
mon her  to  occupy  her  inheritance.  Seeking  to  promote  by  all 
suitable  concessions  the  amicable  adjustment  you  refer  to,  she  will 
only  withdraw  her  deference  and  submission,  when  a claim  unjust 
in  itself  may  seem  to  expose  a portion  of  her  territory  to  incorpo- 
ration with  a province.  With  the  spirit  of  forbearance,  she  has 
sought  information  only  as  to  an  interest  vital  to  herself  as  well 
as  important  to  the  country,  without  any  purpose  calculated  to 
excite  distrust,  with  only  such  patriotic  views  as  have  rendered 
the  refusal  to  comply  with  her  request  a subject  of  that  species 
of  surprise,  which  a friend,  predetermined  to  take  no  offense,  feels 
when  he  is  not  treated  with  a corresponding  confidence.”  ^ 

The  governor’s  letter  was  an  urgent  plea  for  straightforward 
dealing  and  mutual  confidence,  prompted  by  the  conviction  that 
Maine  hitherto  had  not  been  sufficiently  informed  with  reference 
to  the  purposes  of  the  general  government  in  matters  pertaining 
to  the  boundary.  Also,  unquestionably,  there  existed  in  the 
mind  of  the  governor,  and  of  men  throughout  the  state,  a fear 
that  any  protest  on  the  part  of  Maine,  important  because  grounded 
in  a better  knowledge  of  facts  and  conditions,  would  be  received 
too  late  for  consideration.  In  renewing  the  request  of  the  state 
for  information,  the  governor  accordingly  suggested  an  acceptable 
modification  of  that  request,  in  accordance  with  which  any  com- 
munication from  the  general  government,  made  in  return  for  such 
information,  would  be  received  by  the  governor;  “if  so  required, 
subject  to  a restriction  on  publicity  beyond  a communication  to 
the  Legislature  in  the  usual  terms  of  confidential  communications. 
If  the  President  will  not  consent  to  this,  we  must  yield  with  the 
deference  we  owe  to  the  station  he  holds,  to  the  claims  he  has  on 
our  affections  and  confidence,  to  the  information  he  possesses,  and 


'^American  State  Papers,  VI,  924-926. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


131 


the  prudence  he  displays  to  any  extent  within  which  the  absolute 
and  indefeasible  rights  of  Maine  may  not  be  compromised.”  ^ 

In  his  reply,  May  7,  1827,  Mr.  Clay  defended  the  attitude  of 
the  administration  in  withholding  from  the  government  of  Maine 
the  information  called  for  by  the  Legislature,  insisting  that  com- 
pliance with  the  request  might  have  an  injurious  effect  upon 
negotiations  with  Great  Britain  still  pending.  He  expressed  the 
belief,  however,  also  intimated  in  his  letter  of  March  27th,  that 
these  negotiations  would  soon  be  brought  to  some  conclusion, 
perhaps  in  less  time  than  would  be  required  in  copying  and  trans- 
mitting to  the  governor  the  information  for  which  he  had  called. 
He  offered,  however,  to  furnish  a list  of  papers  filed  by  the  bound- 
ary commissioners,  copies  of  which  would  be  furnished  for  the 
use  of  the  State  of  Maine  with  the  exceptions  already  mentioned.^ 

But  Governor  Lincoln  remained  unsatisfied  with  Mr.  Clay’s 
statement  of  the  attitude  of  the  general  government  toward  the 
government  of  the  State  of  Maine.  This  dissatisfaction  was  in- 
creased by  the  failure  of  the  London  negotiations  undertaken  by 
Mr.  Gallatin.®  and  the  information  that  the  boundary  case  would 
now  go  to  some  European  sovereign  for  arbitration.  The  governor 
accordingly  deemed  it  his  duty,  because  of  Maine’s  interest  in  the 
case,  to  appeal  directly  to  the  president. 

Having  referred  to  the  large  tract  of  territory  belonging  to  the 
State  of  Maine  claimed  by  the  British  government,  the  governor 
said  he  had  been  informed  by  the  secretary  of  state  that  the  dis- 
puted boundary  claims  were  now  about  to  be  submitted  to  some 
foreign  sovereign  for  arbitration.  The  prospect  of  committing 
“the  destinies  of  Maine  to  an  irresponsible  arbiter,  to  be  found  in 
a distant  land  and  necessarily  unqualified  to  act  in  the  case,” 
he  added  was  not  a pleasing  one.  The  proposed  arbitration  he 

'^American  State  Papers,  VI,  924-926. 

Hb.,  926,  927. 

®Mr.  Gallatin  was  sent  to  England  in  1826  as  minister  of  the  United  States 
charged  with  the  duty  of  arranging  various  questions  of  difference  between 
the  two  governments. 


132 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


believed  would  jeopardize  the  rights  of  Maine  without  her  consent 
and  against  her  will;  and  if  called  upon  and  forced  to  make  the 
required  sacrifice,  Maine,  he  held,  would  be  compelled  “to  delib- 
erate on  an  alternative  that  would  test  the  strictness  of  her  prin- 
ciples and  the  firmness  of  her  temper.”  ^ 

Referring  to  the  union  of  the  states  under  the  federal  constitu- 
tion, Governor  Lincoln  also  held  that  while  Massachusetts  sur- 
rendered to  the  general  government  a portion  of  her  powers,  she 
yielded  no  right  to  dispose  of  her  territory,  or  to  take  any  part 
from  her  jurisdiction.  Maine,  as  the  successor  of  Massachusetts 
in  exercising  governmental  control,  could  not  recognize  “any 
procedure  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for  the  sever- 
ance of  her  territory  and  the  abrogation  of  her  authority,  without 
a sensibility  too  serious  to  be  passive.  She  holds  that  her  domain 
is  not  the  subject  of  partition.”  The  power  of  subjecting  territo- 
rial rights  to  arbitration,  giving  to  the  arbiter  the  power  to  deter- 
mine and  establish  territorial  limits,  is  equivalent  to  the  power  of 
ceding  territory;  and  the  interposition  of  the  general  government 
in  such  cases  he  held  to  be  without  constitutional  authority. 
“The  cession  would  be  nugatory,  and  if,  for  a time,  Maine  should 
be  compelled  to  submit  to  it,  the  abeyance  produced  by  power 
will  not  preclude  the  right  of  resumption  which  justice  may  at 
some  period  award.”  ^ 

In  this  letter,  Maine  at  length  had  found  a voice,  and  it  was 
the  voice  of  one  who  was  determined  to  be  heard.  President 
Adams,  however,  had  no  words  of  resentment  because  of  the  lack 
of  the  usual  official  forms  of  expression  in  such  communications, 
and  especially  because  of  the  strenuous  declarations  which  Gov- 

^ Governor  Washburn,  in  his  paper  on  The  Northeastern  Boundary  {Maitie 
Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  36),  referred  to  these  “grave, 
strong  words  of  Governor  Lincoln”  as  words  that  “stirred  the  blood  of  every 
true  son  of  Maine  to  a boiling  heat,  and,  reaching  the  department  of  State, 
brought  the  federal  administration  to  a halt  in  what  had  been  apprehended 
were  its  purposes.  ’ ’ 

^American  State  Papers,  VI,  927,  929. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


133 


ernor  Lincoln  had  placed  on  record  in  letting  it  be  known  that 
boundary  affairs  had  not  been  conducted  as  Maine  thought  was 
fitting  considering  the  importance  of  her  interests.  Replying 
through  the  secretary  of  state,  the  president  promised  that  the 
governor’s  letter  should  receive  careful,  respectful  attention.  It 
would  afford  him  great  satisfaction,  he  added,  if  a resort  to  arbi- 
tration for  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy  could  be 
avoided  by  obtaining  from  Great  Britain  an  explicit  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  territorial  claims  of  Maine  in  their  whole  extent;  but 
the  prospect  was  not  encouraging.^ 

Although  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  year,  the  government  of  the 
United  States  received  assurances  that  the  British  government 
would  abstain  from  the  adoption  of  any  new  measures  that  could 
be  regarded  as  an  exercise  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty  in  the  dis- 
puted territory,  the  assurances  were  disregarded;  and  Governor 
Lincoln,  September  3,  1827,  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Clay  to 
conditions  in  the  boundary  country.  “Along  the  St.  John  river,” 
he  said,  “following  it  up  westwardly  from  the  junction  of  the 
Madawaska,  is  a very  flourishing  settlement  containing  a consid- 
erable number  of  peaceably  disposed  and  industrious  inhabitants. 
Among  these  is  a proportion  of  American  emigrants,  some  of 
W'hom  hold  their  land  under  deeds  from  Massachusetts  and  Maine, 
and  the  others,  or  nearly  all  of  them,  are  anxious  to  obtain  titles 
in  the  same  way.  The  latter  at  present  occupy  as  tenants  at 
sufferance,  and  neither  recognize  the  lands  as  being  crown  lands, 
nor  do  they  voluntarily  submit  to  British  authority.  These  per- 
sons the  government  of  New  Brunswick  treats  in  all  respects  as 
aliens,  denies  their  right  to  hold  real  estate,  assesses  upon  them 
the  alien  tax,  and  refuses  to  permit  to  them  the  transmission  of 
their  produce  as  American.  I forbear  to  speak  of  many  acts  of 
violence  and  petty  vexation  of  which  they  also  complain.  The 
other  inhabitants  are  uniformly  treated  as  British  subjects,  and 
new  acts  of  jurisdiction  even  to  requirement  of  military  duty  are 

^American  State  Papers,  VI,  929,  930. 


134 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


as  frequently  exercised  as  the  ordinary  operations  of  a municipal 
control  require.”  ^ 

This  condition  of  things  upon  the  border  Governor  Lincoln 
made  the  ground  of  a new  appeal  for  the  protection  of  state  inter- 
ests. To  allow  the  Maine  lands  in  the  boundary  region  to  remain 
uncultivated,  and  to  postpone  public  improvements  because  of  a 
state  necessity,  said  the  governor,  was  a sacrifice  that  was  capable 
of  being  endured  if  required;  but  it  was  not  pleasing  to  see  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  under  the  authority  of  those  who  owe 
us  allegiance.  The  governor  also  again  gave  expression  to  his 
disappointment  at  the  announcement  from  Washington  that  it 
had  been  finally  decided  to  refer  the  boundary  controversy  to  the 
arbitration  of  a foreign  sovereign,  and  asserted  his  belief  that  the 
people  of  Maine  would  never  consent  to  an  award  that  was  unfa- 
vorable to  Maine  interests.^  September  14th,  in  acknowledging 
the  receipt  of  the  governor’s  letter,  Mr.  Clay  stated  that  he  had 
transmitted  to  the  British  minister  in  Washington  the  governor’s 
statements  with  reference  to  New  Brunswick  encroachments,  with 
the  request  that  the  necessary  orders  should  be  given  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  arrangement  that  had  been  made  to  restrain 
both  parties  from  acts  of  jurisdiction  in  the  disputed  territory 
until  the  controversy  was  settled. 

How  well  Governor  Lincoln  understood  conditions  along  the 
northeastern  frontier  of  the  country  is  made  clear  in  his  corre- 
spondence with  reference  to  the  arrest  of  John  Baker  by  New 
Brunswick  ofiicials.  In  1825,  the  land  agents  of  Massachusetts 
and  Maine  under  the  provisions  of  resolves  of  the  two  Legisla- 
tures, dated  February  26th  and  June  11th,  granted  one  hundred 
acres  of  land®  to  John  Baker,  describing  him  as  an  inhabitant  of  a 
plantation  called  and  known  by  the  name  of  “The  Madawaska 

^Deane's  Report,  Appendix  No.  25,  46. 

2 Ib.,  48. 

® The  land  was  described  as  beginning  at  Mariumpticook  stream  or  point 
on  the  St.  John  River.  It  was  a mill  seat,  where  there  had  been  erected  a 
sawmill  and  a gristmill. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY, 


135 


settlement  in  the  County  of  Penobscot.”  ^ It  was  the  same  land 
which  was  formerly  in  possession  of  his  brother,  Nathan  Baker, 
then  deceased,  whose  widow  John  Baker  had  married.  Here, 
regarding  themselves  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  John 
Baker  and  some  other  settlers  in  the  vicinity  erected  a liberty 
pole,  July  4,  1827,  and  raised  an  American  flag.  It  was  such  a 
celebration  of  the  day  as  they  had  known  in  the  Maine  towns 
from  which  they  came.  While  these  proceedings  were  in  prog- 
ress, however,  a New  Brunswick  official  appeared  and  ordered 
John  Baker  to  lower  the  flag.  This  Baker  refused  to  do.  On 
the  following  day,^  a paper  prepared  by  Baker  and  James  Bacon, 
was  made  the  occasion  of  a public  declaration  of  their  rights  as 
American  citizens  on  American  soil,  the  signers  agreeing  to  adjust 
all  disputes  among  themselves  by  referees,  and  to  support  each 
other  in  asserting  Maine’s  territorial  rights.  It  was  a brief  com- 
pact providing  for  security  in  civil  concerns  in  the  absence  of 
state  authority.  But  again  the  New  Brunswick  official  appeared, 
and  demanded  the  surrender  of  the  manuscript  agreement.  This 
demand,  also,  was  refused. 

Because  of  this  clashing  wdth  New  Brunswick  authority,  Baker 
and  Bacon  not  long  after  made  their  way  to  Portland  and  laid 
their  grievances  before  the  governor,  having  especial  reference  to 
New  Brunswick  encroachments  and  their  own  recognition  as  citi- 
zens of  Maine,  entitled  to  state  protection.®  They  received  from 
the  governor  assurances  of  state  support,  but  they  were  urged 
to  observe  the  utmost  caution  in  all  their  relations  to  oppos- 
ing parties  while  the  boundary  controversy  remained  unsettled. 
After  their  return,  very  early  in  the  morning  of  September  25th, 

^At  the  same  time  one  hundred  acres  of  land  below  Baker’s  grant,  and 
between  the  point  and  the  new  French  settlement,  was  granted  to  James 
Bacon,  also  a citizen  of  the  United  States.  Daveis’  Report,  as  agent  of  the 
State  of  Maine,  January  31,  1828,  19. 

-American  State  Papers,  VI,  842. 

® Their  sworn  statement  is  in  Manuscript  Correspondence  and  Documents, 
State  Uibrary,  1,  65-70. 


136 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


John  Baker  was  arrested  by  an  armed  force  from  Fredericton, 
New  Brunswick,  to  which  place  he  was  taken  and  committed  to 
jail.  A nephew  of  Mr.  Baker  was  despatched  at  once  to  the 
nearest  post  office  on  the  Kennebec  River,  conveying  a statement 
to  the  state  authorities  announcing  Mr.  Baker’s  arrest.  October 
22,  1827,  Governor  Lincoln  having  received  this  statement, 
addressed  a letter  to  Sir  Howard  Douglas,  lieutenant  governor 
of  New  Brunswick,  requesting  information  concerning  the  arrest 
and  imprisonment  of  Mr.  Baker.  “The  attempt  to  extend  the 
jurisdiction  of  New  Brunswick  over  the  disputed  territory,”  he 
said,  “will  compel  counteraction  from  Maine;”  and  he  reiterated 
the  statement  in  the  added  words,  “The  arrest  of  our  citizens  on 
what  we  believe  to  be  a part  of  our  state  will  demand  its  utmost 
energies  for  resistance.”  ^ 

The  answer  to  this  communication  came  somewhat  tardily,  hav- 
ing been  written  November  15,  1827,  and  gave  no  evidence  of  any 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  lieutenant  governor  to  improve  the  exist- 
ing strained  relations  between  the  two  governments.  It  opened 
with  a lesson  on  manners,  occasioned  by  the  fact  that  the  gov- 
ernor of  Maine  had  presumed  to  open  correspondence  with  the 
writer  concerning  a matter  under  consideration  between  the  Brit- 
ish government  and  the  government  of  the  United  States.  This 
was  followed  by  a refusal  to  furnish  the  information  requested  on 
the  ground  that  such  action  would  be  inconsistent  either  with  his 
sense  of  duty  or  with  his  instructions.  Declining,  therefore,  any 
further  correspondence  with  the  governor  of  Maine,  the  lieuten- 
ant governor  closed  his  reply  with  the  expression  of  a hope  that 
his  future  conduct  in  these  relations  would  be  such  as  to  evince 
a just  solicitude  for  the  repression  and  punishment  of  any  acts 
in  the  disputed  territory  that  might  lead  to  the  interruption  of 
a good  understanding  between  the  two  countries,  and  to  keep 
the  question  in  a state  propitious  for  a speedy  and  amicable 
adjustment.^ 

"^Deane's  Report,  Appendix  No.  27,  49. 

^Ib.,  Appendix  No.  29,  54,  55. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


137 


Failing  to  obtain  from  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Bruns- 
wick the  information  he  sought,  Governor  Lincoln,  November 
5th,  appointed  Mr.  Charles  S.  Daveis'  an  agent  of  the  state,  and 
directed  him  to  proceed  to  Fredericton,  and  obtain  such  informa- 
tion concerning  Mr.  Baker’s  arrest  and  imprisonment  as  he  had 
requested  in  his  letter  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Douglas.  Writing 
to  the  latter  again,  soliciting  now  a friendly  reception  for  Mr. 
Daveis,  and  permission  for  him  to  pass  through  the  territory  he 
might  wish  to  visit  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  facts  relative 
to  complaints  of  violence  and  injustice  committed  on  citizens  of 
Maine,  he  closed  his  letter  with  these  words:  “Mr.  Daveis’ 
authority  does  not  specially  designate  his  object;  but  you  are 
requested  to  consider  him  as  fully  empowered  to  demand  the 
release  of  John  Baker,  a citizen  of  Maine,  said  to  be  confined  in 
the  jail  at  Fredericton,  and  that  the  persons,  who  arrested  him  and 
conveyed  him  there,  may  be  delivered  up  to  be  tried  by  the  laws 
of  this  state  and  dealt  with  as  justice  may  require.”  ^ 

This  action  was  followed  four  days  later  with  a proclamation  by 
the  governor  as  follows:  “Whereas  it  has  been  made  known  to 
this  State  that  one  of  its  citizens  has  been  conveyed  from  it  by  a 
foreign  power  to  a jail  in  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick;  and 
that  many  trespasses  have  been  committed  by  inhabitants  of  the 
same  province  on  the  sovereignty  of  Maine  and  the  rights  of  those 
she  is  bound  to  protect — Be  it  also  known  that,  relying  on  the 
government  and  people  of  the  Union,  the  proper  exertion  will  be 
applied  to  obtain  reparation  and  security — Those,  therefore,  suf- 
fering wrong,  or  threatened  with  it,  and  those  interested  by  sym- 
pathy on  account  of  the  violation  of  our  territory  and  immunities, 
are  exhorted  to  forbearance  and  peace,  so  that  the  preparations 
for  preventing  the  removal  of  our  landmarks,  and  guarding  the 

^Mr.  Daveis  was  a prominent  lawyer  in  Portland.  Judge  Symonds  once 
referred  to  him  as  a man,  “who  mingled  taste,  and  refinement,  and  all  the 
graces  of  personal  and  social  elegance  with  learning  and  genius  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  legal  profession  more  than  any  other  man  who  ever  lived  in 
Maine.  ’ ’ 

"^Deane's  Report,  Appendix  No.  29,  50. 


138 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


sacred  and  inestimable  rights  of  American  citizens  may  not  be 
embarrassed  by  any  unauthorized  acts.”  ^ 

About  this  time  the  promised  papers,  maps,  etc.,  referring  to 
boundary  affairs  were  received  from  the  state  department  at  Wash- 
ington. In  acknowledging  their  receipt,  and  also  a communica- 
tion from  Mr.  Clay  dated  November  16th,  Governor  Lincoln 
expressed  disappointment  in  learning  by  this  letter  that  his  objec- 
tions to  the  submission  of  the  territorial  and  jurisdictional  rights 
of  Maine  to  a foreign  umpire,  without  consulting  or  advising  her 
as  to  the  conditions,  had  not  been  deemed . available.  If  any 
injury  shall  result  to  her,  he  added,  “the  appeal  will  be  made  to 
the  people  of  the  country  and  to  posterity.”  The  depth  of  the 
governor’s  disappointment  is  revealed  by  the  following  words: 
“At  last,  we  learn  that  our  strength,  security  and  wealth  are  to  be 
subjected  to  the  mercy  of  a foreign  individual  who,  it  has  been 
said  by  your  minister,  ‘rarely  decides  upon  strict  principles  of 
law,’  and  ‘has  always  a bias  to  try,  if  possible,  to  split  the  differ- 
ence.’ I cannot  but  yield  to  the  impulse  of  saying  most  respect- 
fully that  Maine  has  not  been  treated  as  she  has  endeavored  to 
deserve.”  In  closing  his  letter  the  governor  referred  to  the  arrest 
of  John  Baker,  mentioning  the  fact  that  his  arrest  was  made  on 
land  conveyed  to  him  in  1825  by  Massachusetts  and  Maine — a 
conveyance  that  was  virtually  “a  certificate  of  citizenship  and  a 
pledge  of  protection;”  and  he  called  upon  the  president  and  the 
secretary  of  state  to  contend  as  earnestly  against  the  arrest  of 
yeomen  on  the  frontier  as  against  the  imprisonment  of  sailors 
upon  the  high  seas.”“ 

In  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature,  January  3,  1828,  the 
governor  devoted  considerable  space  to  matters  relating  to  bound- 
ary considerations.  Of  course  there  was  a reference  to  the  arrest 
of  John  Baker.  The  state,  with  exemplary  moderation,  said  Mr. 
Lincoln,  had  for  years  refrained  from  the  exercise  of  many  of  its 
rights  out  of  an  anxious  desire  to  accede  to  the  wishes  of  the 

'^Deane's  Report^  Appendix  No.  32. 

^Ib.,  Appendix  No.  31. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


139 


general  government  in  its  endeavor  to  avoid  troublesome  foreign 
complications.  The  state  would  shrink  most  dreadfully  from  the 
shame  of  allowing  its  citizens  to  be  incarcerated  in  foreign  jails; 
and  the  governor  expressed  a desire  to  learn  from  the  Legislature 
what  measure  would  be  considered  proper  if  such  acts  as  that  of 
the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Mr.  Baker  should  be  repeated. 

The  message  gave  no  uncertain  sound  with  reference  to  the 
gravity  of  the  situation  in  Maine  because  of  Mr.  Baker’s  arrest. 
Referring  to  the  possibility  of  another  war  with  Great  Britain 
occasioned  by  these  boundary  clashings,  the  governor  remarked: 
“if  that  melancholy  result  of  human  frailty  shall  be  produced, 
the  situation  of  Maine  will  require  great  resolution  and  activity. 
The  concentration  of  the  British  forces  with  the  view  of  dividing 
the  Union,  by  an  occupation  of  New  York,  will  not  be  attempted 
again;  but  the  seaboard,  and  the  interior  frontier  of  Maine,  will  be 
the  one  a line  of  maritime  invasion  and  the  other  of  excursions 
and  incursions  according  to  the  emergencies  relating  to  our 
defence.  The  effort  will  probably  be  to  cut  off  this  State,  or  at 
least  for  this  we  ought  to  be  prepared,  so  as  not  to  admit  any 
repetition  here  of  such  scenes  as  occurred  during  the  last  war.”  ^ 

In  his  message  the  governor  again  called  attention  to  the  unde- 
fined and  perhaps  undefinable  line  of  rights  between  State’s  and 
United  States’  authority.  The  president,  he  said,  had  been  con- 
sidered as  disposed  to  submit  the  question  of  the  boundary  of 
Maine  to  the  umpirage  of  a foreign  sovereign,  without  consult- 
ing the  wishes  of  the  people  of  Maine.  This  action  the  governor 
believed  admitted  the  possibility  of  an  unjust  and  disastrous  de- 
cision. He  accordingly  believed  it  due  to  the  state  “to  advance 
the  doctrine  that  the  submission  of  its  boundary  to  an  umpire, 
unknown  to  herself,  and  upon  terms  not  confided  to  her  consid- 
eration, will  leave  her  at  liberty  to  act  upon  the  result  as,  to  the 
country  and  herself,  may  be  dictated  by  the  most  just  and  patri- 
otic inclinations.”  ^ 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  622-626. 

Ub.,  623-624. 


140 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


But  the  governor  desired  especially  to  learn  from  the  Legisla- 
ture what  measures  would  be  considered  proper,  in  case  such  acts 
as  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Mr.  Baker  should  be  repeated 
during  the  proposed  arbitration  proceedings.  Reference  was 
made  to  what  had  been  done  by  way  of  correspondence  with  the 
lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick  and  by  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Daveis  to  visit  New  Brunswick  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing information.  In  his  own  mind  there  was  no  doubt  of  the 
intention  of  the  government*of  New  Brunswick  to  extend  and 
confirm  its  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  disputed  territory.  Sub- 
ject to  the  direction  of  the  Legislature,  he  purposed  “to  offer 
some  difficulties  against  such  a course;  nor  could  it  be  doubted 
that  the  United  States  government  and  that  of  Great  Britain 
would  see,  on  being  furnished  with  the  facts,  that  the  govern- 
ment of  New  Brunswick  had  advanced  beyond  the  line  of  tenable 
ground,  while  it  seemed  not  to  have  listened  to  those  recommen- 
dations to  mutual  forbearance  which  had  rung  out  so  loud  that 
invasions  of  Maine  territory  had  failed  to  attract  that  attention 
which  otherwise  they  would  have  received.” 

The  governor’s  message  was  at  once  referred  to  a joint  commit- 
tee of  the  Legislature.  On  January  26,  1828,  the  committee, 
through  John  G.  Deane,  presented  an  extended  report  reviewing 
the  history  of  the  northeastern  boundaries,  and  of  the  controversies 
that  had  followed  the  description  of  the  boundary  in  the  treaty  of 
1783.  Referring  to  that  part  of  the  governor’s  message  in  which 
the  territorial  rights  of  the  State  of  Maine  were  asserted,  the 
report  of  the  committee  sustained  the  governor’s  position,  holding 
that  the  Union  was  composed  of  independent  sovereignties,  that 
it  was  never  intended  to  give  to  the  federal  government  any  power 
by  which  rights  of  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  might  be  abridged. 
It  had  never  been  pretended  that  Congress  had  the  power  of  tak- 
ing from  one  state  and  giving  to  another,  or  of  incorporating  new 
states  within  the  limits  of  old  ones;  nor  had  it  ever  claimed  to 
exercise  such  power.  The  most  it  had  ever  done,  or  had  a con- 
stitutional right  to  do,  had  been  to  give  its  consent  to  the  compact 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY.  141 

made  between  the  parties  immediately  interested,  and  to  admit 
the  new  state  into  the  Union.  Congress,  therefore,  had  no  more 
constitutional  right  to  take  territory  from  Maine  and  cede  it  to 
New  Brunswick  than  it  had  to  take  from  Virginia  a part  of  her 
territory  and  cede  it  to  North  Carolina.  In  fact.  Congress  had 
not  attempted  to  exercise  any  such  power.  The  treaty  of  Ghent 
limits  the  power  of  the  boundary  commission  to  the  surveying 
and  marking  of  the  lines  and  erecting  its  monuments  according  to 
the  treaty  of  1783.  If,  how'ever,  the  United  States  government 
should  so  far  yield  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  boundary  contro- 
versy that  the  lines  of  the  State  of  Maine  should  be  materially 
changed,  she  would  be  as  much  dispossessed  of  her  territory  and 
sovereignty  as  she  would  have  been  by  a direct  exercise  of  the 
power  of  cession.  The  one  mode,  equally  with  the  other,  involved 
an  assumption  of  power  that  was  never  delegated.  This  part  of 
the  report  closed  with  the  following  words: 

“While  it  is  the  duty,  as  well  as  the  interest  of  individuals,  as 
well  as  States,  to  yield  a peaceable  and  quiet  obedience  to  every 
exercise  of  constitutional  power  on  the  part  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  it  is  equally  their  duty  and  their  interest  to 
resist  all  encroachments  on  the  rights  which  they  have  reserved. 
If  a part  of  the  State  of  Maine  should  be  surrendered  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  either  by  a direct  or  indirect  exer- 
cise of  the  power  of  cession,  it  will  then  be  a duty  which  she  owes 
to  herself  to  consider  whether  she  has,  by  such  an  invasion  of 
her  rights,  lost  her  right  of  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction.  Such  an 
exercise  of  power  can  have  no  obligatory  force,  and  unless  Maine 
quietly  and  peaceably  submits,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  States,  a 
duty  imposed  by  the  federal  government,  to  afford  her  aid  and 
protection,  and  to  aid  her  in  regaining  her  rights.”  ^ 

Legislative  action  followed  by  which  the  governor,  in  case  of 
new  aggressions  upon  the  territory  of  Maine  by  the  government 
of  New  Brunswick,  and  provided  seasonable  protection  should  not 
be  given  to  the  state  by  the  United  States,  was  requested  to  use 


'^Resolves  of  Maine,  I,  695,  696. 


142 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


all  proper  and  constitutional  means  to  protect  and  defend  its  citi- 
zens in  the  disputed  territory  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights.  It 
was  also  resolved  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Legislature  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  ought,  without  delay,  to  demand  of  the 
British  government  the  immediate  release  of  John  Baker.  Mean- 
while, the  governor  was  authorized  to  extend  to  Mr.  Baker’s 
family  such  relief  as  was  deemed  necessary.  From  this  position, 
now  firmly  taken  by  the  governor  and  the  Legislature  of  Maine, 
there  was  no  retreat  in  the  added  years  of  the  boundary  contro- 
versy; and  no  action  was  taken  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  that  involved  such  a cession  without  first  obtaining  the 
consent  of  the  State  of  Maine. 

Mr.  Daveis’  report  to  Governor  Lincoln,  giving  the  results  of 
his  visit  to  New  Brunswick  as  the  agent  of  Maine, ^ was  presented 
to  the  Legislature,  January  31,  1828.  It  covered  thirty-five 
printed  pages,  and  was  a clear  and  forceful  relation  of  facts  con- 
cerning recent  aggressions  upon  the  territorial  rights  of  the  State 
of  Maine  and  upon  the  individual  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  living  in  the  boundary  country.  The  inhabitants  of  the 
Aroostook  valley,  he  said,  were  living  upon  land,  of  which  grants 
and  surveys  were  commenced  before  the  war  of  1812,  under 
authority  of  Massachusetts  and  without  remonstrance  from  New 
Brunswick.  Mr.  Daveis  also  gave  an  account  of  conditions 
among  the  settlers  upon  the  St.  John  River  within  the  boundary 
line,  as  it  crossed  the  river  on  a due  north  line  from  the  source  of 
the  St.  Croix.  The  provincial  government  had  never  made  any 
grant  above  the  river  Madawaska.  It  was  here,  above  the  French 
settlements,  that  John  Baker  obtained  a grant  of  land  from  Massa- 
chusetts and  Maine,  the  first  American  settlement  having  been 
made  in  1817;  and  it  was  from  holdings  here  that  Baker  was  taken 
by  New  Brunswick  officials.  No  resistance  was  made  by  Mr. 
Baker.  It  did  not  appear  that  any  preliminary  examination  was 
held  at  that  time;  but  the  prisoner  was  taken  to  Fredericton  and 
committed  to  jail.  In  closing  his  report,  Mr.  Daveis  said:  “The 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  State  Library,  I,  141-170. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


143 


facts  are  shortly  these:  citizens  of  Maine  and  others  settled  on 
lands  surveyed  and  granted  by  its  authority,  living  within  its 
ancient  and  long  established  limits,  are  subjected  to  the  operation 
of  foreign  laws.  These  are  applied  to  them  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  civil  process,  in  taking  away  their  property  and  also  their  per- 
sons. American  citizens  in  this  State  are  proceeded  against  as 
aliens,  for  sedition  and  other  offences  and  misdemeanors  against 
the  crown  of  Great  Britain;  and  one  of  them,  a grantee  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  Maine,  seized  on  the  land  granted,  remains  in  prison 
on  charges  of  that  description.  A portion  of  this  State,  of  con- 
siderable magnitude,  is  thus  actually  incorporated  into  an  adjoin- 
ing province;  and  his  excellency,  the  Lieutenant  Governor,  a 
person  of  great  virtue,  is  unable  from  his  situation,  to  afford  the 
explanations  which  these  acts  obviously  require,  except  to  those 
under  whose  orders  he  is  placed,  or  with  whom  he  is  obliged  to 
correspond.”  ^ 

In  his  visit  to  New  Brunswick  and  the  disputed  territory,  Mr. 
Daveis  was  accompanied  by  Mr.  S.  B.  Barrell,  whom  President 
Adams,  informed  of  disturbances  on  the  eastern  frontier,  had 
appointed  as  early  as  November  19,  1827,  to  obtain  further  infor- 
mation concerning  them.  He  was  particularly  directed  to  inquire 
into  the  causes  of  the  arrest  of  John  Baker;  and,  if  it  was  deemed 
necessary,  he  was  to  proceed  to  his  place  of  confinement,  it  being 
alleged  that  he  had  been  committed  to  a loathsome  and  unhealthy 
jail.^  In  his  report  to  the  secretary  of  state,  February  11,  1828, 
with  reference  to  this  special  request,  Mr.  Barrell  said  that  while 
at  Fredericton  he  had  repeated  interviews  with  Mr.  Baker. 
The  apartment  of  the  prison  in  which  Mr.  Baker  was  confined 
precluded  the  possibility  of  rendering  its  tenants  comfortable. 
In  the  same  apartment  with  Mr.  Baker  there  was  a man  who 
was  imprisoned  for  debt.  In  fact,  as  Mr.  Barrell  was  informed, 

^Daveis'  Report,  34,  35.  A large  number  of  documents,  referring  to  John 
Baker’s  case,  collected  by  Mr.  Daveis  when  in  New  Brunswick,  will  be  found 
in  Vol.  I of  Corresponde7ice  and  Documetits  in  the  State  Dibrary,  171-429. 

‘^A^nerican  State  Papers,  VI,  838,  839. 


144 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  prison  had  been  recently  presented  by  the  grand  jury  of  the 
county  as  a public  nuisance.^ 

From  Fredericton,  Mr.  Barrell  proceeded  to  the  Madawaska 
settlement,  and,  having  had  free  communication  with  the  Amer- 
ican settlers  there,  he  made  quite  a full  report  as  to  the  origin  of 
these  settlements,  and  the  causes  of  recent  disturbances.  Con- 
cerning the  document  drawn  up  by  the  Americans  the  day  after 
the  Fourth  of  July  celebration,  the  report  says:  “This  document, 
as  the  undersigned  was  informed  by  several  of  the  settlers,  was 
in  the  form  of  by-laws;  and  the  purport  of  it  was,  that  the  sign- 
ers, in  consequence  of  their  great  distance  from  their  own  gov- 
ernment, thinking  it  expedient  to  form  themselves  into  a society 
and  have  laws  of  their  own,  agreed  that  they  would  resist  any 
further  attempt  to  enforce  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  among  them, 
and  would  make  laws  for  themselves.  John  Baker,  James  Bacon 
and  Daniel  Savage  were  constituted  a tribunal  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  law  among  them,  with  power  to  seize  and  sell  property  in 
satisfaction  of  debts  contracted  among  the  settlers:  One  of  the 
settlers  was  appointed  to  the  office  of  constable.  These  by-laws 
were  to  be  in  force  for  one  year,  unless  sooner  assembled  by  the 
American  government.  This  document,  they  stated,  was  signed 
by  most  of  the  American  settlers,  and  was  offered  for  signature, 
and  the  contents  explained,  to  several  of  the  French  settlers,  one 
of  whom  was  induced  to  put  his  name  to  it.  It  was  destroyed 
about  a month  afterwards.”^  To  the  settlers  at  Madawaska  Mr. 
Barrell  recommended  forbearance  and  moderation  in  their  future 
proceedings  during  the  progress  of  boundary  negotiations,  assur- 
ing them  that  if  they  remained  inoffensive  and  peaceable  they 
could  rely  upon  the  protection  of  the  federal  government. 

Meanwhile,  Mr.  Clay  was  still  in  correspondence  with  the  Brit- 
ish minister  in  Washington  concerning  collisions  of  authority  to 
which  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  exposed  by  rea- 
son of  this  long  delay  with  reference  to  the  adjustment  of  the 

'^American  State  Papers,  VI,  840. 

Ub.,  VI,  842. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


145 


boundary  controversy.  The  visit  of  Mr.  Barrell  had  disclosed 
some  transactions  which  the  president  had  noticed  with  regret. 
The  settlement  on  the  Madawaska  was  an  unauthorized  intrusion 
on  the  property  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  to  which  the  terri- 
tory belonged  before  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  French  settlement 
there  could  not  affect  or  impair  the  right  of  Massachusetts,  or 
give  any  strength  to  the  pretensions  of  the  British  government. 
Even  if  in  consequence  of  that  settlement  a possession  de  facto  was 
obtained  by  New  Brunswick,  it  was  a possession  limited  by  actual 
occupancy,  and  did  not  extend  to  the  uninhabited  portions  of  the 
adjoining  waste.  The  settlement  of  John  Baker  appeared  to  have 
been  made  upon  contiguous  waste  lands  outside  of  the  Mad- 
awaska settlement,  and  whatever  jurisdiction  New  Brunswick 
might  claim  in  virtue  of  the  Madawaska  settlement  could  not  be 
extended  to  Baker  and  his  American  neighbors.  Even  if  he  had 
been  guilty  of  any  irregularity  of  conduct,  therefore,  he  was  not 
amenable  to  the  provincial  government,  but  to  his  own.  Conse- 
quently his  arrest  on  the  disputed  territory,  and  his  imprisonment 
at  Fredericton,  at  a considerable  distance  from  his  family,  and 
under  loathsome  conditions,  could  not  be  justified.  It  was  a pro- 
ceeding that  seemed  to  have  been  adopted  without  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  United  States,  and  was  incompatible  with  that  mod- 
eration and  forbearance  which  it  was  understood  both  govern- 
ments would  exercise  until  the  question  of  right  between  them 
should  be  finally  settled.  “l  am  charged,  therefore,  by  the  Pres- 
ident,” wrote  Mr.  Clay,  February  20,  1828,  “to  demand  the 
immediate  liberation  of  John  Baker,  and  a full  indemnity  for  the 
injuries  which  he  has  suffered  in  the  arrest  and  detention  of  his 
person . ” ^ 

In  his  reply  Mr.  Vaughan,  the  British  minister,  admitted  that 
Baker’s  residence  was  not  within  the  limits  of  the  Madawaska 
settlement,  but  insisted  that  it  was  within  the  jurisdiction  of  New 
Brunswick,  and  that  Baker  knew  it,  as  he  applied  in  1822  for  the 

'^American  State  Papers,  VI,  1016. 

10 


146 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


bounty  given  by  New  Brunswick  for  corn  grown  in  newly  culti- 
vated ground.  He  also  still  insisted  that  all  persons  who  take  up 
their  residence  in  the  disputed  territory  were  within  British  juris- 
diction until  the  establishment  of  the  boundary  line.^ 

Mr.  Clay  sharply  joined  issue  with  the  statement  of  the  British 
minister  that  the  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  of  the  disputed 
territory  rested  with  Great  Britain,  while  the  controversy  was  still 
in  progress.  Mr.  Vaughan’s  argument,  he  said,  assumed  that 
some  other  act  than  the  treaty  of  1783  was  necessary  for  setting 
apart  the  territories  of  the  United  States  from  those  of  Great 
Britain,  an  argument  that  would  prove  that  the  United  States  was 
not  now  lawfully  in  possession  of  any  portion  of  the  territory 
acquired  by  the  war  for  independence,  the  treaty  of  1783  being 
the  only  act  of  separation  by  virtue  of  which  the  territory  was 
now  held.  In  fact,  to  maintain  his  position,  he  said,  Mr.  Vaughan 
must  make  out  first  that  the  terms  of  the  treaty  do  exclude  alto- 
gether the  disputed  territory,  or  that,  if  they  include  it,  actual 
possession  was  with  Great  Britain  in  1783.  Neither  proposition 
could  be  established.  As  to  the  alleged  irregularity  of  John 
Baker’s  conduct  as  forming  a justification  for  his  arrest  and  the 
subsequent  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  New  Brunswick,  the  acts 
complained  of  were  performed  by  him  under  a belief  that  he  was 
within  the  rightful  limits  of  the  State  of  Maine,  and  so  were  very 
different  from  what  they  would  have  been  if  they  had  been  com- 
mitted on  the  uncontested  territory  of  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Clay 
closed  his  letter  with  the  statement  that  he  was  again  charged  by 
the  president  “to  protest  against  the  exercise  of  all  and  every  act 
of  exclusive  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the 
Province  of  New  Brunswick,”  and  to  announce  that  that  govern- 
ment would  be  held  “responsible  for  all  the  consequences”  to 
which  any  of  those  acts  of  jurisdiction  should  lead.^  In  his  reply 
March  25th,  the  British  minister  adhered  to  the  position  he  had 
already  assumed,  and  June  4th  he  informed  Mr.  Clay  that  Baker 

American  State  Papers ^ VI,  1017. 

Document  No.  126,  25tli  Congress,  Second  Session,  300-304. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


147 


had  been  found  guilty  and  sentenced.  Meanwhile,  however,  Mr. 
Clay  had  carried  the  matter  to  Mr.  William  B.  Lawrence,  the 
United  States  charge  d’  affairs  in  London,  the  president  having 
instructed  the  secretary  of  state  to  address  an  official  note  to  the 
British  government,  calling  upon  it  to  interpose  its  authority  with 
the  government  of  New  Brunswick,  and  enforce  a compliance 
with  the  demands  already  made  upon  that  province,  insisting  that 
the  United  States  could  not  consent  to  the  exercise  of  any  exclu- 
sive British  authority  within  the  contested  territory,  founded  on 
the  plea  of  necessity,  adding  that  any  such  interposition  alone 
would  supercede  those  precautionary  measures  which  the  United 
States  would  otherwise  be  constrained  to  adopt. ^ 

Mr.  Lawrence,  addressing  the  Earl  of  Dudley,  May  5,  1828, 
presented  to  the  British  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs  the  case  of  John  Baker,  and  made  a direct  call  upon  the 
government  of  Great  Britain  for  his  liberation,  with  a full  indem- 
nity for  the  wrongs  he  had  suffered  by  his  arrest  and  imprison- 
ment. He  also  stated  that  he  was  instructed  to  require  that  the 
government  of  New  Brunswick  should  cease  to  exercise  acts  of 
exclusive  jurisdiction  within  the  disputed  territory.  The  letter 
throughout  was  a strong  presentation  of  the  case  of  the  United 
States  against  the  New  Brunswick  claim  of  exclusive  authority 
within  the  boundary  territory  pending  the  settlement  of  the  line.^ 

June  26,  1828,  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Lawrence  detailed 
at  length  his  interview  with  Lord  Aberdeen  concerning  matters 
considered  in  his  letter  of  May  5th.  Lord  Aberdeen’s  views,  in 
reply  to  the  American  case  as  presented  in  the  president’s  charge, 
were  more  fully  set  forth  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Lawrence,  dated 
August  14,  1828,  in  which  he  fully  sustained  the  action  of  the 
government  of  New  Brunswick  with  reference  to  John  Baker, 
asserting  that  full  and  substantial  justice  had  been  done  to  him; 
and  while  admitting  that  the  right  of  eventual  sovereignty  over 
the  disputed  territory  was  a question  remaining  in  doubt,  he  held, 

'^Document  No.  126,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  321,  322. 

Mb.,  322-327. 


148 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


as  an  acknowledged  rule  of  law,  that  where  such  a doubt  exists 
the  party  that  once  clearly  had  that  right,  and  had  retained  actual 
possession,  should  continue  to  hold  it  until  the  question  at  issue 
was  decided.  The  recent  attempts  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  intro- 
duce its  authority  along  the  frontier,  he  attributed  to  apprehen- 
sions that  forbearance  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  this 
extent  would  be  construed  into  an  admission  of  the  right  of  Great 
Britain  to  the  possession  of  the  territory  she  claimed.  Such  appre- 
hension he  declared  to  be  without  foundation.^ 

In  a forceful  reply  to  Lord  Aberdeen’s  letter,  Mr.  Lawrence, 
August  22nd,  while  forbearing  to  consider  further  the  Baker  case 
in  the  absence  of  any  knowledge  of  the  president’s  views  with 
reference  to  the  proceedings  connected  with  the  trial  of  Baker, 
took  occasion  to  add  that  if  the  view  which  the  United  States  held 
of  its  territorial  rights  was  correct,  all  those  proceedings  must  be 
admitted  to  have  been  before  a tribunal  wholly  without  jurisdic- 
tion. He  then  combatted  vigorously  Lord  Aberdeen’s  assertion 
of  Great  Britain’s  claim  as  to  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  dis- 
puted territory,  showing  that  there  was  no  ground  for  the  appli- 
cation of  the  rule  of  law,  cited  by  the  British  secretary  of  state. ^ 

John  Baker  next  comes  before  us  in  a note  addressed  to  Gov- 
ernor Lincoln,  October  13,  1828,  by  Mr.  Charles  S.  Daveis. 
Baker  was  still  in  prison,  and  through  Mr.  Daveis  applied  for  the 
relief  provided  by  the  legislature  on  behalf  of  his  family.  The 
painful  situation  in  which  he  had  been  placed  for  a year  was  men- 
tioned. Baker  was  not  asking  anything  for  himself.  “Although 
it  becomes  his  duty  to  wait  his  deliverence,”  said  Mr.  Daveis,  “he 
deems  his  liberty  of  too  great  value  to  be  sold  for  gain.”  But 
his  family  was  in  distress  because  of  the  lack  of  means  for  their 
support,  while  the  head  of  the  family  was  “obliged  to  pay  for  his 
own  maintenance  in  prison.”  Mr.  Daveis  accordingly  asked  for 
“such  aid  and  advice  as  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  Mr. 

'^Document  No.  126,  25th  Congres.s,  Second  Session,  335. 

Mb.,  336-344. 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


149 


Baker  and  his  family  ma}^  require  and  the  government  of  the  state 
may  see  fit  to  extend.”  ^ 

Ten  days  later,  October  23,  1828,  Governor  Tincoln  wrote  to 
Mr.  Clay,  inclosing  Mr.  Daveis’  note.  After  referring  to  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Baker  was  still  a prisoner  “under  the  domination  of  that 
government  of  which  the  president  long  since  demanded  his 
release  with  indemnity,”  he  added:  “His  family  is  numerous 
and  respectable,  and  reduced  to  want  by  the  absence  of  a hus- 
band’s and  parent’s  care.  His  property  was  growing  by  his 
industry  and  economy,  but  is  falling  fast  to  ruin;  and  he  is  a 
solitary  American  in  a foreign  jail.  In  his  conduct  he  has  exhib- 
ited the  utmost  discreetness;  and  while,  with  the  firmness  of  a 
freeman  and  the  dignity  of  a patriot,  he  has  denied  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  New  Brunswick  over  his  person  and  property,  he  has  sub- 
mitted with  patience  to  the  power  which  it  belonged  only  to 
Maine  and  his  country  to  resist;  ’ ’ and  he  advised  that  inasmuch 
as  Mr.  Baker’s  family  was  in  distress,  that  the  national  govern- 
ment should  reimburse  the  state  for  its  advance  of  two  hundred 
and  twelve  dollars  for  their  relief.  In  his  reply,  Mr.  Clay,  after 
expressing  regret  that  Baker’s  release  had  not  been  secured, 
informed  the  governor  that  the  president  had  authorized  the  reim- 
bursement of  the  state  for  the  money  advanced  in  Mr.  Baker’s 
interest,  and  that  the  governor’s  draft  for  the  amount  mentioned 
in  his  letter  would  be  duly  honored.^ 

When  the  legislature  of  Maine  convened  at  the  opening  of  the 
new  year,  Governor  Lincoln,  in  his  annual  message,  said  that 
during  the  year  just  closed  a garrison  had  been  established  on  the 
eastern  frontier,  an  agent  had  been  appointed  by  the  state  for 
service  there,  provision  had  been  made  for  a military  road  in  the 
boundary  region,  and  the  interests  of  John  Baker  had  been  assumed 
by  the  national  government.  As  affairs  now  are,  said  the  gov- 
ernor, it  rests  on  the  magnanimity  of  Congress  not  to  allow  him 
to  suffer  in  the  hands  of  a foreign  power,* 

'^Document  No.  126,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  345. 

Mb.,  344-346. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  13. 


150 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


However,  Mr.  Baker  was  not  brought  to  trial  until  May  8,  1828, 
a little  more  than  seven  months  after  his  arrest.  The  trial,  at  the 
bar  of  the  supreme  court  in  Fredericton,  was  before  Chief  Justice 
Saunders,  Justice  Bliss  and  Justice  Chipman,  the  latter  already 
known  to  the  reader  as  the  British  agent  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  St.  Croix  commission  and  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Islands  com- 
mission. Baker  was  charged  with  conspiracy  and  sedition,  and 
among  the  overt  acts  mentioned  in  the  charge  was  that  of  raising 
in  the  parish  of  Kent,  County  of  York,  the  flag  of  the  United 
States  and  declaring  the  place  where  the  flag  was  raised  United 
States  territory.  The  attorney  general  conducted  the  prosecu- 
tion. Baker  was  without  counsel,  and  when  called  upon  for  his 
defence  addressed  the  court  briefly,  declaring  himself  a citizen  of 
the  United  States,  holding  his  land  from  the  states  of  Maine  and 
Massachusetts,  and  denying  that  he  was  amenable  to  New  Bruns- 
wick courts.  “l  enter  no  defense,”  he  said,  “and  call  no  evi- 
dence.” The  attorney  general  then  addressed  the  court,  and 
after  Justice  Chipman ’s  charge,  which  was  of  considerable  length, 
the  case  was  given  to  the  jury,  which  returned  a verdict  of  guilty. 
May  12th,  Mr.  Baker  was  again  brought  into  court  and  was  sen- 
tenced to  two  months’  imprisonment  in  the  common  jail  of  the 
county,  also  to  pay  a fine  of  twenty-five  pounds.  How  long  he 
remained  in  captivity  is  not  stated,  but  it  must  have  been  more 
than  a year.  Great  Britain  declined  to  listen  to  President  Adams’ 
repeated  demands  for  his  release.  After  his  discharge,  Baker 
returned  to  his  home  at  Baker’s  Brook.  He  was  present  at  the 
organization  of  the  town  of  Madawaska  in  1831,  and  took  an 
active  part  in  the  proceedings.^ 

New  Brunswick  gained  a temporary  victory  in  the  arrest  and 
imprisonment  of  John  Baker.  It  was  a victory,  however,  that 
served  only  to  embitter  the  people  of  Maine  against  their  provin- 
cial neighbors  for  a long  time.  In  the  final  settlement  of  the 
boundary  controversy,  the  land  of  John  Baker  was  left  within  the 
territory  of  the  state  and  of  the  United  States.  Under  the  ener- 

1 Paper  read  before  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  by  Mr.  George  S.  Rowell. 


The  John  Baker  Memoriae. 

Erected  by  the  State  of  Maine  in  1895  at  Fort  Fairfield. 


.-M 


MAINE  ENTERS  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


151 


getic  and  inspiring  leadership  of  Governor  Lincoln,  Maine  also 
had  a victory  of  her  own — a victory  in  winning  to  her  side  the 
support  of  the  national  government  in  maintaining  that  the  United 
States  could  not  cede  any  portion  of  the  territory  of  Maine  with- 
out Maine’s  consent;  also  in  securing  the  government’s  accept- 
ance of  her  urgent  request  that  the  United  States  should  demand 
of  the  British  government  the  release  of  John  Baker,  and  an 
indemnity  for  his  sufferings  and  imprisonment. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Boundary  Differences  Referred  to  the  King  of  the 
Netherlands. 

FTER  Commissioners  Barclay  and  Van  Ness  failed  to  agree 
upon  the  boundary  matters  submitted  to  them,  it  only 
remained  for  the  two  governments,  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  to  refer  the  reports 
of  the  commissioners  “to  some  friendly  sovereign  or  state  to  be 
named  for  that  purpose.”  Before  such  a reference  was  secured, 
however,  wearisome  delays  were  encountered.  Allusion  has 
already  been  made  to  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to 
obtain  a settlement  of  the  boundary  matter  by  direct  negotiation. 
In  1826,  Mr.  Albert  Gallatin  was  sent  to  England,  as  United  States 
minister,  partly  with  reference  to  such  an  arrangement.  He  was 
one  of  the  commissioners  representing  the  government  at  Ghent 
in  1814,  was  familiar  with  boundary  concerns,  and  his  experience 
in  diplomatic  affairs  was  such  as  to  awaken  hopes  that  by  such 
direct  negotiations  a more  satisfactory  result  would  be  reached 
than  by  arbitration.  After  Mr.  Gallatin’s  arrival  in  England, 
various  conferences  with  reference  to  the  boundary  were  held  in 
London,  in  which  Mr.  Gallatin  represented  the  United  States,  and 
Mr.  Charles  Grant  (succeeded  by  Mr.  William  Huskisson)  and 
Mr.  Henry  Unwin  Addington  represented  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Gallatin  very  soon  learned  that  the  British  government  was 
not  in  favor  of  the  substitution  of  negotiations  at  Washington  for 
arbitration  by  a friendly  European  sovereign;  and  all  his  energies 
were  directed  to  such  a careful,  diligent  consideration  of  matters 
pertaining  to  the  case  to  be  presented  to  the  arbiter  as  would 
be  most  helpful.  At  these  conferences  Mr.  Gallatin  found  Mr. 
Addington  “extremely  unmanageable,”  not  from  ignorance,  for 
he  was  well  instructed  in  the  various  branches  of  inquiry  in  refer- 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


153 


ence  to  the  history  of  the  controversy,  but  because  he  had  made 
all  the  prejudices  and  enthusiasm  of  the  provincial  agents  and 
officials  his  own.  “His  object,”  wrote  Mr.  Gallatin  to  Mr.  Clay 
March  6,  1827,  “is  clearly  not  that  the  parties  should  have  a 
fair  trial  before  the  arbiter,  but  to  take  every  advantage  he  can 
possibly  gain.”  ^ Believing  that  the  first  act  of  the  arbiter  would 
be  to  demand  an  actual  survey  to  be  substituted  for  the  two  con- 
tradictory maps  already  made,  Mr.  Gallatin  proposed  the  prepara- 
tion of  a general  map  representing  the  water  courses,  etc.,  the 
north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix,  and  the  bound- 
ary lines  claimed  by  the  two  governments.  This  proposal  was 
accepted.  On  the  difficult  point  as  to  what  must  be  considered 
“highlands,”  as  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  however,  they 
had  not  been  able  to  agree;  and  in  this  connection  Mr.  Gallatin 
complained  of  perplexities,  “countenanced  by  a letter  from  Judge 
Sullivan  to  Mr.  Madison  and  one  from  Mr.  Madison  to  Mr.  King,” 
both  of  which  had  been  published  in  the  United  States.^ 

September  21,  1827,  Mr.  Gallatin  wrote  to  Mr.  Clay  that  an 
agreement  had  at  length  been  reached  for  submitting  the  north- 
eastern boundary  controversy  to  a friendly  sovereign  in  conform- 
ity with  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  In  accordance 
with  this  agreement,  all  the  evidence  laid  before  the  commission- 
ers during  the  sessions  of  the  defunct  commission  was  to  go  to 
the  arbiter,  but  not  the  arguments  of  the  agents  and  the  reports 
made  to  the  commissioners,  these  being  so  voluminous  and  com- 
plicated as  to  render  it  improbable  that  any  sovereign  or  state 
would  be  willing  or  able  to  undertake  the  office  of  investigating 
and  arbitrating  upon  them.  In  place  of  these,  statements  pre- 
pared by  each  party  would  be  substituted  and  each  would  have 
the  privilege  of  reply.  New  evidence,  also,  could  be  presented 
within  nine  months  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  and  the 
arbitrator  was  to  have  the  right  to  call  for  additional  evidence 

^ Henry  Adams,  Life  and  Writings  of  Albert  Gallatin,  II,  361,  362. 

Mb.,  II,  369,  370. 


154 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  elucidations,  also  to  order  new  surveys  if  he  should  consider 
it  necessary.^ 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  conventions  in  London,  Mr.  Galla- 
tin returned  to  the  United  States.  In  a letter,  informing  him 
that  he  had  submitted  the  papers  concerning  the  agreement  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  president  added,  “l  wish  they 
may  prove  as  satisfactory  to  them  as  they  have  been  to  me.”^ 
This  agreement,  ratified  in  London,  April  2,  1828,  was  made 
public  by  the  president  May  15th  following.  In  the  fourth  article 
Mitchell’s  map  was  acknowledged  to  have  regulated  the  oflficial 
proceedings  of  the  convention.  Reference  also  was  made  to  a 
map  A delineating  the  water  courses  as  agreed  on  by  both  of  the 
contracting  parties.  These  maps  were  to  be  the  only  maps  con- 
sidered as  evidence;  but  it  was  to  be  considered  lawful  for  either 
party  to  annex  to  his  first  statement,  for  the  purposes  of  general 
illustration,  any  maps,  surveys  or  topographical  delineations 
which  were  filed  with  the  commissioners  under  the  fifth  article  of 
the  treaty  of  Ghent,  any  engraved  map  heretofore  published,  and 
also  a transcript  of  map  A,  or  a section  thereof,  in  which  tran- 
script each  party  might  lay  down  the  highlands  or  other  features 
of  the  country,  as  it  should  think  fit;  the  water  courses  and  the 
boundary  lines,  as  claimed  by  each  party,  remaining  as  laid  down 
in  map  A.  But  this  transcript,  as  well  as  all  the  other  maps, 
surveys,  or  topographical  delineations,  other  than  map  A and 
Mitchell’s  map,  intended  to  be  thus  annexed  by  either  party  to 
the  respective  statements,  were  to  be  communicated  to  the  other 
party  within  nine  months  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  and 
were  to  be  subject  to  such  objections  and  observations  as  the  con- 
tracting parties  might  deem  it  expedient  to  make  thereto.® 

It  w;as  also  provided  that  all  the  statements,  papers,  maps  and 
documents  which  shall  have  been  mutually  communicated  should, 
without  any  addition,  substraction  or  alteration,  be  jointly  and 

^ Henry  Adams,  Life  and  Writings  of  Albert  Gallatin,  II,  388. 

Ub.,  398. 

^American  State  Papers,  VI,  1000-1002. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


155 


simultaneously  delivered  to  the  arbitrating  sovereign,  within  six 
months  after  his  consent  to  accept  his  appointment.^  According 
to  the  seventh  article  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator  was  to  be  taken 
as  final  and  conclusive,  and  it  was  to  be  immediately  carried  into 
effect  by  commissioners  appointed  for  that  purpose  by  the  two 
governments. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  2,  1828,  Presi- 
dent Adams  announced  that  by  an  agreement  with  the  British 
government,  carrying  into  effect  the  provisions  of  the  fifth  article 
of  the  treaty  of  Ghent  and  the  convention  of  September  29,  1827, 
the  king  of  the  Netherlands  had  been  selected  in  another  friendly 
effort  for  a decision  of  the  long  standing  controversy.  The 
proposal  to  the  king  to  act  as  umpire  between  the  two  parties  for 
the  performance  of  this  friendly  office,  he  said,  would  be  made  at 
an  early  day,  and  he  added,  “the  United  States,  relying  upon  the 
justice  of  their  cause,  will  cheerfully  commit  the  arbitrament  of  it 
to  a prince  equally  distinguished  for  the  independence  of  his 
spirit,  his  indefatigable  assiduity  to  the  duties  of  his  station,  and 
his  inflexible  probity.”  ^ This  was  high  commendation,  and  the 
words  of  the  president  served  as  a very  favorable  introduction  of 
the  arbitrator  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Other  represen- 
tations of  the  qualifications  of  the  king  for  such  an  appointment, 
however,  had  reached  this  country,  as  has  already  been  mentioned, 
and  were  by  no  means  favorable.  Governor  Lincoln,  of  Maine, 
alluding  to  this  selection  in  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature, 
January  8,  1829,  found  no  objection  to  the  arbitrator,  and  hope- 
fully assumed  that  the  king  would  act  as  a “magnanimous  dis- 

^At  the  suggestion  of  Judge  Preble  (who  had  been  appointed  ‘‘Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  near  the 
Government  of  the  Netherlands”),  Mr.  Charles  S.  Daveis,  of  Portland,  was 
made  by  the  president  ‘‘Special  and  Confidential  Agent  of  the  United  States” 
to  receive  the  books,  documents,  maps,  etc.,  that  were  to  be  used  by  the  king 
of  the  Netherlands  in  his  consideration  of  the  boundary  controversy,  and  take 
them  to  The  Hague.  Mr.  Daveis  sailed  from  New  York  January  11,  1830,  and 
reached  The  Hague  March  13th,  where  he  discharged  the  duties  of  his  mission. 

‘^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II,  408. 


156 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


poser  of  justice,”  having  the  opportunity  to  achieve  a “most 
glorious  victory  by  the  suppression  of  the  most  extreme  error.”  ^ 

The  members  of  the  legislative  committee,  to  whom  was  referred 
so  much  of  the  governor’s  message  as  dealt  with  matters  pertain- 
ing to  the  northeastern  boundary,  made  no  reference  in  their 
report  to  the  friendly  sovereign  appointed  as  umpire;  but  they 
resented  the  failure  of  the  authorities  of  New  Brunswick  to  observe 
the  understanding  to  refrain  from  the  exercise  of  sovereignty 
rights  over  the  disputed  territory  while  negotiations  were  in  prog- 
ress; and  the  committee  added:  “it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  we 
are  not  restrained  by  any  supposed  understanding  between  us  and 
the  British  government  from  causing  the  authority  of  our  laws  to 
operate  for  the  protection  of  our  citizens  settled  on  this  territory, 
still  less  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  prevent  the  forest  lands 
from  being  stripped  of  their  timber.  The  government  of  the 
United  States,  though  it  has  assumed  (and  we  are  not  disposed  at 
this  time  to  question  the  right)  the  authority  to  settle  our  title  to 
this  tract  of  country,  by  referring  the  dispute  to  an  umpire,  has 
no  means,  it  will  be  recollected,  of  exercising  actual  jurisdiction, 
or  of  making  itself  felt  on  this  territory,  except  through  the 
instrumentality  of  this  State  and  its  laws.  If,  then,  the  contro- 
versy should  fail  to  be  settled  within  two  years,  the  time  stipulated 
within  which  the  umpire  must  decide,  and  which  is  perhaps  not 
improbable,  the  question  occurs,  are  we  to  remain  silent  and 
passive  spectators,  while  our  neighbors  of  New  Brunswick  shall 
strip  the  land  of  its  timber,  persecute  and  expel  our  citizens  and 
cause  their  own  settlers  to  spread  over  the  territory  ? It  is  not 
believed  the  people  of  Maine  are  prepared  to  submit  to  such 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  13,  14.  Evidently  the  governor  spoke  under  much 
restraint.  At  a later  period  in  the  controversy,  Mr.  Daveis,  in  a legislative 
report  (March  30,  1841,  Maine  Senate  Document  No.  19),  referring  to  this 
selection  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  gave  expression  to  a general  view 
in  Maine  concerning  it  at  the  time  in  these  words:  ‘‘It  was  at  this  moment 

that  Maine  suddenly  saw  the  sword  suspended,  as  it  were,  over  her 

head;  or  perhaps  we  should  more  fitly  say,  when  she  beheld  the  scales  about 
to  be  put  into  the  hand  of  an  arbiter,  whose  acknowledged  bias,  would  be, 
the  same  whether  king  or  farmer,  to  split  the  difference.” 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


157 


usurpation — that  they  will  suffer  nearly  one-third  of  their  whole 
territory  to  be  thus  wrested  from  them  without  an  effort  or  a 
murmur.  The  people  of  this  State  have  a constitutional  right  to 
claim,  and  do  claim  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  that 
they  will  not  suffer  the  integrity  of  our  State  to  be  violated — 
that  they  will  assist  us  in  preserving  our  ancient  landmarks,  and 
in  vindicating  our  undoubted  right  to  all  the  territory  assigned 
and  secured  to  us  by  the  treaty  of  1783.”  ^ 

Governor  Lincoln  at  this  time  was  in  the  prime  of  life,  being 
forty  years  of  age.  During  his  governorship  he  had  devoted  him- 
self unsparingly  to  the  duties  of  his  office.  He  was  interested  in 
everything  that  pertained  to  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  Maine. 
He  had  a large  vision  of  the  future  of  the  state,  and  sought  in 
every  way  to  advance  all  moral,  educational  and  civil  concerns. 
To  internal  improvements  he  gave  much  consideration.  His  firm 
and  intelligent  action  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  boundary  con- 
troversy has  already  been  mentioned.  It  was  his  purpose,  how- 
ever, to  retire  from  the  governorship  at  the  close  of  his  present 
term,  and  give  himself  to  agricultural  and  literary  pursuits.  He 
was  fond  of  outdoor  life.  He  loved  the  forests  and  lakes  of 
Maine.  But  scholarly  activities  had  their  allurements.  He  had 
gathered  much  material  with  reference  to  the  state,  its  history,  its 
resources,  etc.  He  had  also  given  considerable  attention  to  the 
language  and  life  of  the  Indians  of  Maine.  It  was  a pleasing 
future  that  was  opened  before  him,  but  he  was  not  permitted  to 
enter  upon  its  employments.  His  health  now  began  to  fail,  while 
he  still  busied  himself  at  his  tasks.  In  July,  he  went  from  Port- 
land to  Augusta  to  deliver  an  address  at  the  laying  of  the  corner- 
stone of  the  Capitol  of  the  state.  Again,  early  in  October,  he 
made  his  way  to  Augusta  to  make  an  address  at  the  opening  of 
the  Cony  Female  Academy.  He  left  Portland  with  an  impression 
that  he  would  not  return,  but  he  had  heard  the  call  of  what  he 
regarded  as  duty,  and  that  was  a call  he  could  not  refuse  to  heed. 


'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  77-79. 


158 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


He  died  October  8,  1829,  and  was  buried  with  public  honors  in 
the  state  park  between  the  capitol  and  the  Kennebec.^ 

After  the  selection  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  as  arbitrator, 
there  was  additional  delay  in  boundary  considerations  because  of 
the  time  needed  for  the  preparation  of  the  statements  required  for 
submission  to  the  king.  The  statement  for  the  United  States  was 
prepared  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  who  had  the  able  assistance  of  Judge 
William  Pitt  Preble  of  Maine.  In  that  part  of  the  argument 
devoted  to  the  signification  of  the  term  “highlands”  as  used  in 
the  treaty  of  1783,  Mr.  Gallatin  insisted  that  the  term  does  not 
necessarily  mean  a mountainous  country,  but  was  judiciously 
selected  in  reference  to  an  unexplored  country,  as  applicable  to 
any  ground  along  which  the  line  dividing  the  rivers  designated 
by  the  treaty  should  be  found  to  pass,  and  was  used  as  synony- 
mous with  “height  of  land,”  Mitchell’s  map  proving  that  the 
negotiators  did  not  by  “highlands”  mean  a generally  mountain- 
ous country,  as  the  mountains  indicated  on  that  map  commence 
more  than  forty  miles  west  of  the  source  of  Mitchell’s  river  St. 
Croix,  and  of  a line  drawn  due  north  from  that  source.  If,  there- 
fore, the  framers  of  the  treaty  of  1783  had  meant  a mountainous 
country,  they  would  have  given  to  the  boundary  line  the  direc- 
tion necessary,  in  order  that  it  should  meet  what  was  on  Mitchell’s 
map  laid  down  as  such,  and  must  necessarily  have  defined  that 
line  as  running  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  or  from 
some  point  on  the  due  north  line,  towards  the  country  thus  delin- 
eated on  the  map  as  mountains. 

Following  this  examination  of  objections  to  the  American  line, 
Mr.  Gallatin  proceeded  to  show  that  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of 
1783  were  irreconcilable  with  the  British  pretensions  concerning 
the  boundary;  that  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  must  be 
on  the  dividing  highlands;  and  that  the  boundary  line  from  the 

^An  interesting  paper  on  the  life  and  services  of  Governor  Enoch  Eincoln 
was  read  before  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  December  23,  1882,  by  Mr. 
Edward  H.  El  well.  It  will  be  found  in  the  first  series  of  the  Collections  of 
the  Maine  Historical  Society , VIII,  137-157. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


159 


said  angle  to  the  northwesternmost  source  of  the  Connecticut 
River  must  be  along  the  said  dividing  highlands.  He  also  con- 
sidered the  interpolations  and  substitutions  of  other  expressions 
to  the  terms  of  the  treat}^  suggested  by  the  British  agent  and 
commissioner  under  the  late  commission,  and  the  attempts  made 
to  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  words  “to  divide.”  He  also  sought 
to  ascertain  the  intentions  of  the  framers  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  as 
deduced  from  the  identity  of  the  boundary,  designated  by  the 
treaty,  with  those  assigned  by  the  previous  public  acts  of  Great 
Britain  to  the  provinces  of  Quebec  and  Nova  Scotia;  as  inferred 
from  the  maps  published  between  1763  and  1783;  and  as  proved 
by  Mitchell’s  map,  which  was  acknowledged  to  have  regulated 
the  joint  and  ofl&cial  proceedings  of  the  framers  of  the  treaty. 

The  argument  for  the  American  claim  was  closed  with  showing 
that  by  the  term,  “northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut  River,” 
the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  must  have  intended  that  source 
which  would  be  found  to  lie  northwest  of  any  other,  without  any 
reference  whatever  to  either  of  the  branches  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other;  also  with  an  examination  of  the  boundary  line  from 
the  Connecticut  River  to  the  river  St.  Lawrence — a line  ascertain- 
able without  practical  difiiculty,  as  it  was  known  through  its 
whole  extent,  having  been  for  nearly  sixty  years  the  acknowl- 
edged boundary  between  the  province,  or  state  of  New  York,  and 
Canada,  and  as  the  line  separating,  from  each  other,  the  grants  of 
land  made  in  that  quarter,  by  the  two  governments,  from  the 
Connecticut  to  the  river  St.  Lawrence.^ 

The  statement  was  signed  by  Albert  Gallatin  and  William  Pitt 
Preble,  “agents  of  the  United  States  in  the  negotiation  and  upon 
the  umpirage  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary  of  the  said 
states.” 

The  British  statement^  was  presented  under  the  same  three 

"^Definitive  Statemejit  on  the  Part  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  1829. 

^ Its  preparation  was  confided  to  the  zeal  and  ability  of  three  men  distin- 
guished in  British  diplomacy.  Mr.  Addington  drew  up  the  first  document, 
Sir  Stratford  Canning  the  second.  Sir  C.  Vaughan  was  minister  at  Wash- 
ington. 


160 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


general  heads  as  in  the  American  statement.  With  reference  to 
the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  British  government  con- 
tended that  the  point  thus  designated  “is  found  at  or  near  an 
elevation  called  Mars  Hill,  which  is  situated  in  a due  north  line 
drawn  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  and  south  of  the 
River  St.  John;  that  the  highlands  intended  by  the  treaty  are 
those  extending  from  that  point  to  the  Connecticut  River;  and 
that  the  rivers  Penobscot,  Kennebec  and  Androscoggin  are  the 
rivers  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  which  are  intended  by 
the  treaty  to  be  divided  from  the  rivers  which  empty  themselves 
into  the  River  St.  Lawrence.”  On  the  other  hand  the  “high- 
lands” claimed  by  the  United  States  divided  waters  emptying  into 
the  river  St.  Lawrence  from  waters  flowing  into  the  Bay  of  Cha- 
leurs  and  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  or  else  through  the  river  St. 
John  into  the  Bay  of  Fundy;  while  the  “highlands”  referred  to 
in  the  treaty  were  said  to  divide  waters  flowing  into  the  river  St. 
Lawrence  from  those  flowing  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  This,  it 
was  claimed,  was  “the  cardinal  point”  of  the  whole  of  this 
branch  of  the  discussion.  The  “highlands,”  according  to  the 
treaty  of  1783,  must  divide  waters  emptying  into  the  river  St. 
Lawrence  from  waters  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  not  into 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  as  in  the  Amer- 
ican claim.  This  was  the  custom  of  geographers  in  designating 
arms  of  the  sea  by  specific  names.  Thus  on  Mitchell’s  map  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy  are  separately  distin- 
guished from  the  Atlantic  Ocean. ^ 

A second,  or  definitive  statement,  was  made  by  each  of  the  two 
governments.  That  of  the  United  States  was  a vigorous  reply  to 
the  positions  taken  by  Great  Britain  in  its  first  statement;  while 

1 Of  course,  what  is  here  said  of  the  custom  of  geographers,  in  designating 
subordinate  divisions  of  the  sea  by  special  names,  is  true;  but  any  such  spe- 
cial designation  is  not  a denial  that  great  divisions  of  the  sea,  like  the  Atlan- 
tic Ocean,  also  embrace  subordinate  subdivisions  like  the  Bay  of  Fundy. 
This  “cardinal  point’’  in  the  British  statement  was  at  first  only  a “hint.” 
Concerning  its  origin  in  connection  with  the  boundary  controversy,  see 
Moore’s  Interyiational  Arbitrations , I,  107-110. 


Jonathan  G.  Hunton 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


161 


the  British  second,  or  definitive  statement,  was  not  a reply  to  that 
made  by  the  United  States,  but  a supplementary  presentation  of 
the  British  case. 

The  American  and  British  statements  were  presented  to  the 
king  of  the  Netherlands  January  10,  1829.  In  his  annual  mes- 
sage to  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  February  10,  1830,  Governor 
Hunton  ^ alluded  to  the  reference  of  the  boundary  controversy  to 
“the  high  personage  agreed  upon  in  the  convention”  in  London. 
Evidently  a fear  had  been  expressed  in  some  quarter  that  juris- 
diction upon  a question  different  from  that  officially  submitted 
might-be  urged  upon  the  arbitrator.  Should  that  be  the  case,  the 
governor  indulged  the  hope  that  the  high  character  of  the  sover- 
eign selected  would  not  permit  him  to  be  a party  to  any  such 
action.  As  to  an  early  decision  upon  matters  thus  to  be  deter- 
mined by  arbitration,  however,  the  governor  was  not  hopeful. 
It  might  not  definitely  be  announced  “before  the  expiration  of 
many  years,”  he  said.^ 

A year  passed,  and  in  his  annual  message  January  8,  1831, 
Governor  Smith  ^ had  little  information  to  communicate  with  ref- 
erence to  boundary  matters.  His  words,  however,  manifested 
great  solicitude  lest  the  rights  of  the  state  should  not  be  main- 
tained. As  to  the  progress  that  had  been  made  during  the  year 

^Jonathan  G.  Hunton  (oftentimes  Huntoon  in  the  press  of  that  day)  was 
a native  of  Unity,  New  Hampshire,  but  came  to  Readfield,  Maine,  while  a 
young  man,  and  studied  law  with  his  uncle,  Samuel  P.  Glidden.  He  was 
elected  governor  during  the  political  excitement  connected  with  the  election 
of  General  Jackson  as  president  of  the  United  States. 

‘‘■Resolves  of  Maine  ^ H,  97. 

® Samuel  E.  Smith,  born  in  Leominster,  Massachusetts,  and  a graduate  of 
Harvard  College  in  1808,  established  himself  in  the  practice  of  law  in  Wis- 
casset.  District  of  Maine,  in  1812.  In  1821,  he  was  appointed  chief  justice  of 
the  circuit  court  of  common  pleas  for  the  second  circuit.  The  circuit  system 
having  been  abolished  in  1822,  he  was  made  an  associate  judge,  with  Ezekiel 
Whitman  as  chief  justice.  He  was  thrice  elected  governor  of  Maine,  holding 
that  office  in  1831,  1832,  1833.  The  removal  of  the  seat  of  government  from 
Portland  to  Augusta  occurred  in  his  administration,  the  Legislature  holding 
its  first  session  in  Augusta  in  January,  1832. 


11 


162 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


toward  a final  adjustment  of  the  boundary  controversy,  it  was  not 
in  his  power,  he  said,  to  give  definite  information;  but  he  sug- 
gested that  delay  probably  had  been  occasioned  ‘ ‘by  the  late  dis- 
turbances in  the  dominions  of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands.”  The 
reference  was  to  an  uprising  in  Belgium  by  which  the  king  was 
deprived  of  a part  of  his  sovereignty  which  included  nearly  three- 
fifths  of  his  subjects,  and  left  him,  in  reality,  king  of  Holland 
only.  This,  the  governor  feared,  would  make  the  king  depend- 
ent on  Great  Britain  for  succor  and  support,  rendering  it  doubtful 
at  least  if  he  would  be  able  to  give  a just  decision  on  the  delicate 
and  important  questions  which  had  been  referred  to  him  as  arbi- 
trator. “If  the  effect  of  this  revolution,”  said  the  governor, 
“should  be  to  unite  in  still  closer  bonds  of  amity  the  former 
friendly  and  intimate  relations  of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands 
with  Great  Britain,  which  seems  to  be  probable,  it  must  be  con- 
sidered that  the  agreement  to  refer  would,  in  that  event,  be  ren- 
dered of  no  avail.  Whatever  confidence  may  be  put  in  the  justice 
of  our  cause,  however  clearly  our  right  may  be  shown  in  argu- 
ment, we  certainly  could  not  be  willing  to  submit  it  to  the  umpir- 
age of  a sovereign,  who  is  not  only  the  ally,  but  who  by  the  force 
of  circumstances,  may  have  become  in  some  measure  the  depend- 
ent ally  of  Great  Britain.” 

Evidently,  however,  there  was  a deeper  cause  for  the  governor’s 
anxiety  than  is  indicated  in  this  reference  to  affairs  in  Belgium. 
As  United  States  minister  to  The  Hague,  Judge  Preble  was  in  close 
touch  with  those  who  were  more  or  less  familiar  with  matters 
under  consideration  in  diplomatic  circles;  and  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  he  left  his  friends  in  Maine  without  such  early  infor- 
mation as  to  boundary  concerns  as  reached  him  from  time  to 
time.^  At  all  events,  however  received,  information  that  the 
decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  had  been  reached,  and 

^The  official  correspondence  in  the  possession  of  the  State  of  Maine  with 
reference  to  northeastern  boundary  considerations  is  singularly  lacking  in 
communications  from  Jannary  1,  1829,  to  March  9,  1831. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


163 


would  be  found  to  take  the  form  of  a compromise,  seems  to  have 
been  the  real  ground  of  the  governor’s  anxiety.^ 

Public  information  with  reference  to  the  decision,  however, 
was  not  long  lacking.  The  following,  taken  from  the  Boston 
Advertiser,  appeared  in  the  Eastern  Argus,  published  in  Portland, 
February  28,  1831.  “We  learn  from  the  London  Morning  Herald 
of  January  19th  and  20th  that  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  has 
decided  on  the  question  submitted  to  his  determination  by  the 
British  and  United  States  governments,  that  the  boundary  line 
shall  run  due  north  from  the  St.  Croix  until  it  strikes  the  river 
St.  John,  thence  running  along  the  St.  John  to  the  river  St. 
Francis,  and  thence  strikes  off  along  a tract  without  any  natural 
marks  of  highlands,  or  rivers,  to  the  foot  of  the  ridge  bounding 
the  St.  Lawrence.  By  this  decision  the  territory  in  dispute  is 
divided  and  the  greater,  and  probably  the  most  valuable  portion, 
is  given  to  the  United  States,  but  the  northern  portion,  contain- 
ing the  whole  valley  of  the  Madawaska  river  and  Timscouta 
Lake  and  the  country  through  which  the  line  of  communication 
between  New  Brunswick  and  Lower  Canada  passes,  is  given  to 
Great  Britain.  The  settlements  on  the  Madawaska  of  course  go 
to  the  colonies,  and  those  on  the  south  side  of  the  St.  John  to  the 
United  States.  The  principle  on  which  this  decision  is  made 
is  not  explained.  It  probably  proceeded  from  a desire  to  satisfy 
both  parties,  by  giving  to  each  so  much  of  the  contested  territory 
as  is  of  most  importance  to  it.  Somewhat  petulantly  the  Herald 
remarked:  ‘His  Orange  Majesty  must  have  vaster  ideas  of  space 
than  his  present  limited  sway  would  lead  us  to  believe.’  ” 

The  king  of  the  Netherlands  announced  his  decision  January 
10,  1831.  It  is  possible  that  a communication  from  Judge  Preble 
concerning  the  decision  had  been  received  by  the  governor  of 
Maine  by  this  time.  February  28,  1831,  was  on  Monday,  and  as 
the  Legislature  did  not  meet  on  that  day  until  the  afternoon,  the 
Eastern  Argus  of  that  date  was  probably  in  the  hands  of  its  mem- 
bers. The  Journal  of  the  Maine  House  of  Representatives  for 


^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  148-150. 


164 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


February  28,  1831,  contains  this  record:  “Mr.  Deane  of  Ellsworth 
laid  upon  the  table  certain  papers,  and  the  House,  on  his  motion, 
voted  to  sit  with  closed  doors  during  the  consideration  thereon, 
which  continued  until  House  adjourned.”  In  the  Journal  of  the 
Senate  for  Monday  afternoon,  February  28,  1831,  occurs  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph:  “The  clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
came  in  and  laid  on  the  table  a document  from  the  House,  and  on 
the  suggestion  being  made  by  the  president  that  said  document 
was  of  a confidential  nature,  the  Senate  was  cleared  of  spectators 
and  the  oath  of  secrecy  administered  to  the  messenger.  The 
president  then  proceeded  to  read  said  document,  which  proved  to 
be  a report  of  the  committee,  with  certain  resolutions  in  relation 
to  the  decision  of  the  umpire  in  relation  to  the  Northeastern 
Boundary.  After  some  debating,  the  question  of  accepting  said 
report,  and  passing  said  resolutions,  was  ordered  to  be  taken  by 
yeas  and  nays  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  as  follows,  to  wit: 
Yeas,  Messrs.  Dunlap,  Gardner,  Goodwin,  Hall,  Harding,  Hutch- 
ings, Ingalls,  Kingsbery,  Megquier,  Pike,  Steele  and  Sweat,  12. 
Nays’  Messrs.  Drummond,  Eastman,  Fuller,  Hinds  and  Hutchin- 
son. S.  W.  Morse  was  excused  from  voting  on  the  question.”^ 

The  document  laid  before  the  Senate  was  a report  of  a joint 
committee  of  the  Legislature  having  in  charge  matters'  pertaining 
to  the  boundary.  In  it  the  firm  position  already  taken  by  the 
state,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  had  no  right  to 
cede  any  portion  of  Maine  territory  without  the  consent  of  the 
state,  was  stoutly  asserted.  ‘ ‘Whenever  that  takes  place,  ’ ’ contin- 
ued the  report,  “the  people  of  this  happy  and  flourishing  country 
will  be  reduced  to  the  condition  of  the  people  of  other  countries; 
they  will  have  just  as  much,  and  no  more  liberty,  than  the  gov- 
ernment will  graciously  permit  them  to  enjoy.” 

A more  ringing  utterance  followed  in  the  resolutions  that  were 
adopted  by  the  Maine  Legislature  and  in  the  preamble  by  which 
they  were  preceded: 

‘‘Whereas,  By  the  convention  of  September,  1827,  an  independent  sover- 
eign was  to  be  selected  by  the  governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great 

^ Copy  furnished  by  the  secretary  of  state. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


165 


Britain,  to  arbitrate  and  settle  such  disputes  as  had  arisen,  and  the  king  of 
the  Netherlands  was,  pursuant  to  that  convention,  selected  the  arbiter,  while 
an  independent  sovereign,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  exercising  domin- 
ion and  authority  over  more  than  6,000,000  of  subjects; 

“And  Whereas,  By  the  force  of  the  prevalence  of  liberal  opinions  in  Bel- 
gium, the  Belgians  overthrew  his  power,  and  deprived  him  of  more  than  half 
of  his  dominions  and  reduced  him  to  the  former  dominions  of  the  Stadtholder, 
leaving  him  with  the  empty  title  of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands  while  he  is 
only  King  of  Holland,  and  thereby  increasing  his  dependence  upon  Great 
Britain  for  holding  his  power  even  in  Holland,  which  from  public  appear- 
ances, he  held  by  a very  doubtful  tenure  in  the  affections  of  the  Dutch: 

“And  Whereas,  The  King  of  the  Netherlands  had  not  decided  before  his 
kingdom  was  dismembered  and  he  consented  to  the  division,  and  his  public 
character  had  changed,  so  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  that  public  character  and 
occupjdng  that  independent  station  among  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  contem- 
plated by  the  convention  of  September,  1827,  and  which  led  to  his  selection: 

“Therefore,  Resolved  in  the  opinion  of  this  Degislature,  That  the  decision 
of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be  considered  obliga- 
tory upon  the  government  of  the  United  States,  either  on  the  principles  of 
right  and  justice,  or  of  honor. 

“Resolved  further — for  the  reasons  before  stated — That  no  decision  made 
by  any  umpire  under  any  circumstances,  if  the  decision  dismembers  a State, 
has,  or  can  have,  any  constitutional  force  or  obligation  upon  the  State  thus 
dismembered,  unless  the  State  adopt  and  sanction  the  decision.’’  ^ 

The  decision  of  the  king  was  ofl&cially  communicated  to  both 
governments  through  their  official  representatives  at  The  Hague. 
Two  days  later, ^ Judge  Preble,  the  United  States  minister  at  The 
Hague,  addressed  a letter  to  Baron  Verstolk  Van  Soclen,  the  king’s 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  protesting  against  the  decision  as  con- 
stituting a departure  from  the  power  delegated  by  the  two  govern- 
ments in  that  the  king  had  abandoned  altogether  the  boundaries 
of  the  treaty  of  1783  and  substituted  for  them  a distinct  and  dif- 
ferent line  of  demarcation.®  On  the  15th,  also,  in  order  that  the 
good  faith  of  his  government,  its  rights  and  interests  might  not 
be  supposed  to  be  committed  by  any  presumed  acquiescence  on 
his  part  in  the  procedure.  Judge  Preble  addressed  a note  to  Sir 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  242-246. 

^January  12,  1831. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  257-260. 


166 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Charles  Bagot,  the  British  ambassador  at  The  Hague,  expressing 
his  regret  that  the  arbitrator,  “finding  himself  unable  to  decide 
between  their  conflicting  claims,  ’ ’ had  departed  from  the  powers 
delegated  to  him;  ^ and  he  enclosed  a copy  of  his  letter  to  the 
king’s  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  Both  of  these  communications 
he  forwarded  to  the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  adding, 
“in  the  course  adopted  by  me,  I am  fully  aware  that  I have 
assumed  some  responsibility;  at  the  same  time,  I am  also  aware 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States  are  not  at  all  committed 
by  any  act  of  mine,  but  are  left  perfectly  free  to  pursue  their 
own  measures  according  to  what  may  to  them  seem  most  fit  and 
expedient.”  ^ 

January  17th,  in  his  reply  to  Judge  Preble’s  note.  Sir  Charles 
Bagot  expressed  regret  that  he  could  not  coincide  with  the  opin- 
ion it  contained;  but  regarding  it  as  one  upon  which  their  respec- 
tive governments  alone  had  power  to  decide,  he  deemed  it  best  to 
leave  the  matter  in  their  hands.®  Judge  Preble,  however,  did  not 
cease  his  activities.  On  January  25th,  he  addressed  a communi- 
cation to  Mr.  McLane,  the  American  minister  in  London,  in 
which  he  reviewed  at  considerable  length  the  questions  at  issue 
with  reference  to  the  boundary. 

The  full  text  of  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands 
reached  Washington  on  March  16th,  and  on  the  18th,  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  the  secretary  of  state,  transmitted  a copy  and  transla- 
tion of  the  award  to  Governor  Smith,  of  Maine.  Four  days  ear- 
lier, however,  Mr.  Vaughan,  the  British  minister  in  Washington, 
wrote  to  his  home  government;  “it  has  been  long  known  at 
Washington,  that  his  Majesty,  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  deliv- 
ered on  the  10th  of  January  to  Mr.  Preble,  the  minister  from  the 
United  States,  his  decision  upon  the  question  of  boundary  referred 
to  arbitration.  I am  assured,  however,  by  Mr.  Van  Buren,  that 
his  government  has  not  yet  received  the  official  communication 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  261. 

2lb.,  II,  260. 

3 Ib.,  II,  262. 


William  Pitt  Preble 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


167 


of  his  Majesty’s  decision;  though  it  appears  that  some  communi- 
cation of  the  import  of  it  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Preble  to  the  State 
of  Maine/  to  which  he  belongs;  as  it  is  stated  in  the  newspapers 
that  the  Legislature  of  that  State  immediately  took  it  into  consid- 
eration in  a secret  session;  and  it  is  reported  that  general  dissat- 
isfaction was  expressed  with  the  decision  of  the  arbiter.” 

On  the  day  following  the  secret  session  of  the  Maine  Legisla- 
ture, the  injunction  of  secrecy  was  removed  with  reference  to  the 
proceedings  of  that  session  so  far  as  to  allow  a copy  to  be  commu- 
nicated to  the  governor,  and  he  was  requested  to  communicate 
with  the  president  forthwith  concerning  them.  Certainly  there 
was  no  further  need  of  secrecy  with  reference  to  the  proceedings 
of  the  Legislature.  The  newspapers,  as  already  stated,  had  an- 
nounced the  decision.  The  Eastern  Argus  of  Portland  contained 
the  following  editorial  comment:  “it  will  have  been  seen  by  our 
last  that  his  Dutch  Majesty  has  decided  the  boundary  question, 
and  decided  the  dividing  line  to  be  where  nobody  ever  dreamed 

of  its  being  before Better  would  it  have  been  to  have 

left  the  decision  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  England.  But  shall 
this  signal  absurdity  be  submitted  to?  Is  our  State,  and  the 
United  States,  to  be  thus  dismembered,  giving  to  England  a com- 
manding post  in  our  rear,  and  placing  Maine  at  the  mercy  of  a 
nation  whose  whole  history  has  been  a series  of  violations  of  the 
rights  of  other  nations,  and  a continued  unprincipled  struggle  for 
territorial  aggrandizement  by  the  double  means  of  force  and 
fraud?  If  we  submit  to  this,  it  will  be  a general  invitation  to  the 
rest  of  the  world  to  come  and  take  whatever  part  of  our  territory 
their  caprice  and  cupidity  may  desire.”^  This  was  the  general 
attitude  of  the  newspapers  of  the  state  with  reference  to  the 
decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands.  Party  lines  largely  dis- 
appeared. The  Maine  House  of  Representatives  reflected  the 
sentiment  of  the  people  throughout  the  state  concerning  the 

^If  Judge  Preble  made  such  a communication,  it  has  not  been  preserved 
with  other  papers  referring  to  the  northeastern  boundary. 

2 The  Eastern  Argus,  March  7,  1831. 


168 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


boundary  by  the  final  passage,  March  4th,  of  a bill  incorporating 
the  town  of  Madawaska. 

It  was  not  until  March  25,  1831,  however,  that  Governor  Smith, 
in  a message  to  the  legislature,  announced  his  reception  of  a copy 
and  translation  of  the  award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands.  At 
the  same  time,  Secretary  Van  Buren  assured  the  governor  that  the 
award  would  “receive  all  the  attention  and  consideration  to  which 
its  great  importance,  and  the  interests  of  the  State  of  Maine,  so 
materially  involved  therein,  especially  entitle  it  in  the  councils 
of  the  executive  of  the  United  States.”  Mr.  Van  Buren  also 
expressed  the  desire  of  the  president  that  while  the  matter  was 
under  deliberation,  no  steps  should  be  taken  by  the  state  that 
might  “interrupt  or  embarrass  the  action  of  the  executive  branch 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States.” 

The  British  minister  at  Washington,  writing  March  20th, 
informed  his  government  that  the  decision  of  the  king  was  de- 
spatched by  a messenger  to  the  government  of  the  State  of  Maine 
with  an  official  communication;  and  he  added:  “This  government 
[the  United  States]  has  resolved  to  abstain  from  any  expression 
of  an  opinion  until  they  are  in  possession  of  the  answer  to  their 
official  communication  of  the  award  to  the  State  of  Maine.”  ^ If 
there  was  excitement  in  Maine  at  the  announcement  of  the  deci- 
sion of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  there  was  no  little  excitement 
in  England  at  this  announcement  that  the  United  States  govern- 
ment would  abstain  from  any  opinion  concerning  the  award  until 
it  was  in  possession  of  Maine’s  answer  to  the  government’s  offi- 
cial communication.'* 

^Urquhart,  Exposition  of  the  Boundary  Differences,  19. 

^‘‘The  reference  to  the  State  of  Maine  of  a matter  .of  treaty  stipulation 
between  the  States  is  the  clearest  proof  of  the  hostility  of  the  government  to 
a settlement  of  the  question,  and  the  suspending  of  a reply  till  they  receive 
the  decision  of  Maine,  as  if  the  power  resided  in  that  State,  or  as  if  the  opin- 
ion of  that  State  were  doubtful,  exhibits  a settled  plan  of  misrepresentation 
and  deception,  of  course  not  without  an  end  and  object,  which,  to  avow,  would 
be  to  frustrate,  and  which  to  attain,  required  deception.”  Urquhart,  Expo- 
sition of  the  Boundary  Differences , 19. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


169 


The  full  text  of  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  is 
too  long  for  insertion.^  The  following  statement  covers  its  prin- 
cipal points.  As  to  the  term  “highlands,”  the  arbitrator  held 
that  it  applies  not  only  to  a hilly  or  elevated  country,  but  also  to 
land  which  without  being  hilly  divides  waters  flowing  in  different 
directions,  and  therefore  that  the  more  or  less  hilly  character  of 
the  country  through  which  are  drawn  the  lines  of  the  contestants, 
at  the  north  and  at  the  south  of  the  St.  John  River,  could  not 
form  the  basis  of  a choice  between  them.  Moreover,  the  argu- 
ments adduced  on  either  side  and  the  documents  presented  in 
support  of  them,  cannot  be  considered  as  sufficiently  preponderat- 
ing to  determine  a preference  in  favor  of  either  one  of  the  two 
lines  claimed,  while  the  vague  and  not  sufficiently  determinate 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1783  do  not  permit  an  award  to  either 
party  without  violating  the  principles  of  law  and  equity.  The 
king,  therefore,  was  of  the  opinion  that  a suitable  boundary  could 
be  found  by  “a  line  drawn  due  north  from  the  source  of  the  river 
St.  Croix  to  the  point  where  it  intersects  the  middle  of  the  deep- 
est channel  [thalweg]  of  the  river  St.  John;  thence,  the  middle 
of  the  deepest  channel  of  that  river,  ascending  it  to  the  point 
where  the  river  St.  Francis  empties  itself  into  the  river  St.  John; 
thence,  the  middle  of  the  deepest  channel  of  the  river  St.  Francis, 
ascending  it,  to  the  source  of  its  southwesternmost  branch;  thence, 
a line  drawn  due  west  to  the  point  where  it  unites  with  the  line 
claimed  by  the  United  States.”  As  to  the  northwesternmost  head 
of  Connecticut  River,  the  arbitrator  was  of  opinion  that  the 
stream  situated  farthe.st  to  the  northwest  among  streams  which  fall 
into  the  northernmost  of  the  three  lakes,  known  as  Connecticut 
Lake,  must  be  considered  as  that  head.  With  reference  to  the 
45th  parallel  of  north  latitude,  the  arbitrator  held  that  it  would 
be  suitable  to  follow  the  customary  principle  of  observed  latitude 
in  marking  out  the  boundary  from  the  Connecticut  River  along 
the  45th  parallel  of  north  latitude  to  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  but 

^It  will  be  found  in  Moore’s  hiternational  Arbitrations , I,  119-136. 


170 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


in  such  manner  that  Rouse’s  Point  should  be  included  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  United  States. 

An  eminent  authority  estimating  the  disputed  territory  as  con- 
taining an  area  of  12,027  square  miles,  or  7,697,280  acres,  says 
the  award  of  the  arbitrator  gave  to  the  United  States  7,908  square 
miles,  or  5,061,120  acres  and  to  Great  Britain  4,119  square  miles 
or  2,636,160  acres. ^ 

The  joint  select  committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  to  which 
the  governor’s  message  of  March  25,  1831,  was  referred,  presented 
a report  five  days  later.  First  of  all  the  committee  referred  to  the 
revolution  in  Belgium,  which,  from  the  course  pursued  by  Great 
Britain,  naturally  not  only  increased  the  dependence  of  the  arbi- 
trator upon  that  country,  but  compelled  him  to  call  upon  Great 
Britain  for  assistance  to  enable  him  to  maintain  his  position  even 
in  Holland.  The  British,  long  before  the  decision,  were  his  privy 
counsellors.  “He  was  within  their  power  and  control.  Having 
then  lost  the  character  possessed  at  the  time  of  the  selection,  the 
king,  or  sovereign  power  of  the  Netherlands,  ceased  to  be  the 
arbiter  to  whom  the  differences  had  been  submitted.  A decision 
after  such  a change  of  character  and  interest  cannot,  for  any  pur- 
pose, be  considered  as  having  any  obligatory  force  or  effect;  it 
can  be  considered  only  a mere  nullity.” 

Proceeding  to  a consideration  of  the  text  of  the  award,  the  com- 
mittee raised  the  question,  “Has  the  arbiter  decided  the  points 
of  difference  which  had  arisen  between  the  two  governments  ?” 
After  citing  the  language  of  the  award,  viz.,  “We  are  of  opinion 
that  it  will  be  suitable  to  adopt  as  the  boundary,”  the  committee 
remark  this  is  the  language  of  recommendation  or  advice  to  the 
parties  of  a course  to  be  adopted  by  them,  rather  than  a decision. 
The  arbitrator  did  not  pretend  to  decide,  and  declared  that  he 
could  not  decide  the  point  in  controversy  as  to  the  location  of  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  “highlands”  dividing 
the  rivers  emptying  into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall 
into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  He  only  intended  to  suggest  a way  by 

1 Moore,  International  Arbitrations,  I,  136,  137. 


i>3AP 

of  the  Northern  Part  of  the 

STATE  0¥  MAINE 

anil  of  ttie  a<ya<*<*nt 

nR/r/s//  p/ion.vr^s: 

Onta Brian. lays dmmj 

tSrafiAnl  twlo^  ntry^ht 


^ M 

\A  I !. 

1 ^ ' 

ly\ 

ij/  J,  1 

/ 

-f 

- J It  rt.i/ 

' * .srss,  '”' 

h Us..  -J 

I 

i 

k 

'MBMCianMMI 


'-T  4^  fr: 

m " ; i. 

r 1 G*j  '.yCl  lo 


5f 


r 

b s, 


-'  x-’  - f ? * 

■<y  ' i.  ..  ‘._/. 


r > jjRiJI);,  ■ -if; 'i%>  U'.f^ 


;^'sV  y fTuvAj\ 


.r.tvib‘ifts\vwair>?/'' . • ■ .?V^iI^,^'.J y-T;>. VriwV.  i j; 

it 

y<S  ' :»  ^ ■ .\i'  - Sc^XiS^  *t^' 

* i. 

t t 


}0v'  ■'.  .V.i\»5\^»»i..A.'6 


f? 


vt.  •?  ',^w  S*«’*'  .<. 


■V  - . 


' " 'JS^  ^‘'Mhii 'uar/wj) 

■^.v,.<^  ,-p^!'!^';''^^ '‘  yiiivimvi ~iiiiitii~»  /y 


‘:4M^ 


y-*ij . !-AJrJ''M«nitf&«y.  't>  ^ I* 

"OjBarf  »«'.(>o’ .-'-■■■«jV><ffi  .<i  j, 
-i# 


fet' 


i^: 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


171 


which,  in  his  opinion,  this  might  be  done.  How,  then,  could  the 
government  of  the  United  States  consider  itself  bound  to  adopt, 
or  be  governed  by,  his  advice,  particularly  when  the  advice  was 
neither  sought  nor  asked,  and  was  given  at  a time  when  his  sit- 
uation gave  him  peculiar  inducements  for  favoring  Great  Britain. 

This  question,  also,  was  considered  by  the  committee — “Has 
the  arbiter  decided  in  pursuance  of  the  authority  given  him?” 
In  reply,  it  was  said  that  the  case  submitted  to  the  arbitrator  was 
not  a question  of  law  or  equity;  it  was  barely  a question  of  fact, 
and  he  had  authority  only  to  decide  the  fact  under  the  claims  that 
had  been  made  concerning  them,  namely,  whether  the  line  claimed 
by  Great  Britain  on  the  south  of  the  St.  John,  or  that  on  the  north 
of  the  St.  John  claimed  by  the  United  States,  was  the  line  intended 
and  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  This  he  had  not  done,  but 
he  had  drawn  a new  line,  not  on  the  land,  but  in  the  beds  of  riv- 
ers in  a considerable  part  of  its  course,  in  direct  violation  of  the 
claims  of  the  respective  parties  from  which  all  his  authority  was 
derived.  It  followed,  therefore,  that  his  decision  was  null  and 
void,  and  ought  not  to  be  regarded  by  the  United  States  as  having 
any  force  or  effect. 

Other  parts  of  the  award  were  subjected  to  criticism  tending  to 
show  that  the  leading  object  of  the  arbitrator,  in  all  his  argu- 
ments, was  to  avoid  a decision  in  favor  of  either  party,  having  in 
view  a settlement  of  differences  by  compromise.  If  he  decided 
against  the  United  States  it  must  be  on  grounds  that  would  not 
“have  even  the  appearance  of  plausibility  to  the  world.”  After 
a reference  to  the  prompt  and  able  manner  in  which  the  American 
minister  to  The  Hague  had  made  his  protest  against  the  decision, 
the  committee,  in  conclusion,  said  that  the  adoption  of  the  award 
by  the  United  States  (whether  the  award  was  regarded  as  emanat- 
ing from  one  who  had  ceased  to  be  a friendly  sovereign  long  before 
the  decision  was  rendered,  or  whether  considered  as  advice,  and 
so  exceeding  the  authority  given)  would  be  a violation  of  consti- 
tutional rights  to  which  the  State  of  Maine  could  not  submit.^ 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  263-276.  The  report  was  signed  by  John  G.  Deane 
per  order  of  the  committee.  In  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  boundary,  Mr. 


172 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


The  governor  was  requested  by  the  Legislature  to  transmit  a 
copy  of  this  report  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  also  to 
the  governors  of  the  several  states  comprising  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  the  secretary  of  state,  informed  Governor 
Smith  March  18th,  that  Mr.  Preble,  American  minister  to  The 
Hague,  had  asked  for  a leave  of  absence  in  order  that  he  might 
be  heard  upon  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  “before 
any  measures  in  regard  to  it  are  adopted  by  the  President.”  This 
request,  the  secretary  said,  would  be  granted.  The  only  letter 
from  Judge  Preble  to  Governor  Smith  in  the  archives  of  the  State 
of  Maine,  having  reference  to  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the 
Netherlands,  is  dated  “The  Hague,  May  3,  1831.”  After  men- 
tion of  certain  papers  transmitted  with  the  letter,  including  a copy 
of  the  award.  Judge  Preble’s  letter  to  the  king’s  minister  of  for- 
eign affairs,  his  letter  to  the  British  ambassador  to  The  Hague 
and  his  letter  to  the  American  ambassador  in  London,  the  writer 
added:  “At  no  time  was  the  selection  of  the  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands as  arbiter  a favorable  one,  either  as  respects  the  personal 
character  of  the  man,  or  his  political  position.  In  Europe,  not 
excepting  England,  it  was  matter  of  astonishment  that  the  United 
States  should  ever  have  consented  to  it.  At  the  same  time  it 
should  be  remembered  that  between  the  time  of  his  selection  and 
that  of  his  acting,  the  position  of  the  arbiter  underwent  a great 
change.  The  revolution  in  France  and  the  troubles  in  Belgium 
left  to  the  government  not  even  the  show  of  independence,  but, 
drawing  aside  the  veil  of  form,  exhibited  King  and  Court  as  the 
humble,  entreating,  subservient  dependents  of  Great  Britain. 
Strong  as  this  language  may  well  appear  to  you,  there  is  no  decent 
language  which  could  convey  to  you  too  vivid  an  impression  of 
the  fact.  So  much,  however,  had  been  said  by  courtiers  and 
others  of  the  King’s  integrity  and  sense  of  justice,  that,  contrary 
to  my  own  internal  conviction,  I suffered  myself  to  hope  even 

Deane’s  services  were  of  very  great  value.  He  had  been  not  only  a diligent, 
careful  student  of  the  various  problems  of  boundary  concerns  and  could  give 
forceful  expression  to  the  opinions  he  bad  formed,  but  in  1830,  be  bad  visited 
the  boundary  country  with  Judge  Preble  by  order  of  the  government. 


BOUNDARY  DIFFERENCES  REFERRED. 


173 


against  hope.  I was  unwilling  to  believe  that  a man  occupying  so 
elevated  a situation  would  make  that  his  shame  which  he  and  his 
people  had  estimated  so  highl}’-.  In  the  meantime  events  contin- 
ued to  transpire  and  the  instances  of  quibbling,  evasion  and  petty 
cunning  which  came  to  my  knowledge  exhibiting  a mind  mistak- 
ing puerile  subterfuge  for  great  sagacity  and  bad  faith  for  policy 
taught  me  how  little  the  United  States,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, had  to  expect  from  his  Majesty’s  integrity  and  sense  of 
justice.”^ 

February  9,  1831,  Lord  Palmerston,  the  British  premier,  in 
forwarding  to  the  British  minister  in  Washington  a copy  of  the 
award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  informed  him  that  what- 
ever might  be  the  sentiments  or  wishes  of  the  king  of  Great  Brit- 
ain upon  some  of  the  points  embraced  in  the  decision,  his  Majesty 
had  not  hesitated  to  acquiesce  in  that  decision,  and  he  was  per- 
suaded that  such  would  be  the  course  of  the  president  of  the 
United  States.  If,  however,  the  American  government  should 
determine  upon  any  such  step  as  that  taken  by  Mr.  Preble  in  his 
protest,  he  was  not  to  enter  into  any  discussion  of  the  subject, 
but  say  that  he  could  only  transmit  any  communication  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  had  to  offer  for  consideration.^ 
April  12th,  the  British  minister  informed  Lord  Palmerston  that  at 
length  he  was  in  possession  of  the  manner  in  which  the  governor 
and  Legislature  of  Maine  had  received  the  award  of  the  king  of 
the  Netherlands,  a newspaper  in  Portland^  having  commenced, 
April  5th,  the  publication  of  documents  that  had  been  officially 
communicated  by  the  president  when  the  award  was  transmitted 
to  the  governor,  and  the  minister  inclosed  the  first  of  these  publi- 
cations. “l  have  endeavored,”  he  added,  “to  procure  from  the 
secretary  of  state  a copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislature  of 
Maine,  which  will  in  time  appear  in  the  newspapers;  but  the 
government  has  not  yet  received  any  account  of  them.” 

'^Manuscript  State  Correspondence  a7id  Docume?its,  Northeastern  Bomid- 
ary,  II,  130,  131. 

^Urquhart,  Exposition  of  the  Boundary  Differe^ices , 22. 

^ The  Eastern  Argus. 


174 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


After  his  return  to  this  country,  Judge  Preble  published  anony- 
mously a pamphlet^  in  which,  appealing  to  thoughtful  citizens  of 
the  United  States  generally,  he  argued  that  the  award  of  the  king 
of  the  Netherlands  did  not  decide  which  is  the  boundary  of  the 
treaty  as  required,  but  merely  recommended  one.  The  whole 
pamphlet  was  a plea  for  Maine’s  widest  support  in  her  contention 
against  any  such  loss  of  territory  as  was  made  possible  by  the 
award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands.  She  was  unwilling  that 
her  ancient  boundaries  should  be  removed.  She  was  resisting  a 
system  of  encroachment  which  was  as  unjust  as  it  was  persistent, 
and  there  was  need  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  should 
understand  the  critical  situation  which  the  boundary  controversy 
had  reached  because  of  the  award  made  by  the  king  of  the  Neth- 
erlands. 

was  printed  in  Portland  in  1831,  and  was  entitled  “The  Decision  of  the 
King  of  the  Netherlands.’’ 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Other  Boundary  Disturbances  at  Madawaska. 


EANWHILE  the  Legislature  of  Maine  had  passed  an  act  ^ 
incorporating  the  Madawaska  settlement  into  a town  to 
be  known  as  Madawaska,^  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  to 
have  the  same  duties  and  liabilities,  and  also  the  same 
privileges  and  immunities,  as  other  incorporated  towns  in  the  state. 
Any  justice  of  the  peace  within  the  county  of  Penobscot,  or  any 
justice  whose  commission  extended  to  all  parts  of  the  state,  was 
empowered  to  call  a meeting  of  the  inhabitants  for  the  election  of 
town  officers.  In  accordance  with  this  legislative  action,  Mr. 
William  D.  Williamson®  issued  a warrant  July  11,  1831,  requiring 
Walter  Powers  of  Madawaska  to  summon  the  inhabitants  of  the 
town  to  meet  at  the  house  of  Peter  Ligott,*  August  20,  1831,  for 
the  purpose  of  town  organization  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  legislative  act.®  When  the  inhabitants  had  assem- 
bled at  the  appointed  time  and  place  and  had  been  called  to  order, 
Leonard  R.  Coombs,  a captain  in  the  militia  at  Madawaska  act- 
ing under  New  Brunswick  authority,  protested  against  any  fur- 
ther proceedings  in  connection  with  the  purpose  for  which  they 

1 March  15,  1831. 

2 It  derived  its  name  from  the  Madawaska  River,  which  enters  the  St. 
John  from  the  north  at  the  point  where  the  latter,  coming  from  its  sources  in 
a northeast  direction,  makes  a right  angle,  and  flows  southeast  into  New 
Brunswick. 

® This  was  the  author  of  the  well  known  History  of  the  State  of  Maine,  pub- 
lished in  two  volumes  in  1832.  A second  impression,  containing  an  appen- 
dix and  a general  index,  appeared  in  1839. 

*John  Baker,  in  his  deposition  of  October  12,  1831,  mentions  him  as  “Peter 
Lezart,  a resident  on  the  southern  side  of  the  river  St.  John.’’  Resolves  of 
Maine,  II,  479. 

^Executive  Documents,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  24. 


176 


MAINK  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


had  come  together,  and  threatened  those  present  with  arrest  and 
imprisonment  if  they  should  attempt  to  take  the  action  contem- 
plated in  the  warrant.  Francis  Rice,  a resident  of  Madawaska, 
and  a New  Brunswick  justice  of  the  peace,  also  protested  against 
the  proposed  action,  “and  used  many  opprobrious  and  threaten- 
ing terms  against  the  government,^  and  the  authorities  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  State  of  Maine,  and  against  all  persons  who  were 
taking  part  or  participating  in  the  organization  of  the  town.’’ 
Notwithstanding  these  protests,  and  the  excitement  occasioned  by 
them,  order  was  at  length  restored.  Barnabas  Hunnewell  was 
chosen  moderator,  Jesse  Wheelock,  clerk,  and  Daniel  Savage, 
John  Harford  and  Amos  Haddocks,  selectmen.  About  fifty  or 
sixty  persons  were  present,  but  a large  number  of  them  did  not 
vote  because  of  the  threats  made  by  the  New  Brunswick  officials. 
The  meeting  then  adjourned  without  day.^ 

As  the  Legislature  of  Maine  had  empowered  the  inhabitants  of 
Madawaska  to  elect  a representative  in  that  body,  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  state,  another  meet- 
ing, at  which  about  eighty  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  were 
present,  w'as  held  at  the  house  of  Raphael  Martin  on  the  second 
Monday  in  September,  1831,  the  day  of  the  state  election.  Mr. 
Rice  was  present  at  this  meeting  also  and  protested  against  the 
right  of  the  inhabitants  to  hold  such  a meeting,  noting  “in  writ- 
ing the  proceedings  and  the  names  of  all  persons  who  voted,  using 
as  before  menacing  words  towards  those  who  refused  to  recognize 
his  authority.”  The  selectmen  called  him  to  order,  however, 
and  in  the  business  that  followed,  Peter  Ligott  was  elected  repre- 
sentative. 

Of  course  information  concerning  these  proceedings  soon 
reached  Sir  Archibald  Campbell,  the  newly  appointed  lieutenant 
governor  of  New  Brunswick.  Early  in  September  he  had  noti- 
fied Governor  Smith  of  his  “surprise  and  regret”  that  some  citi- 
zens of  Maine  had  crossed  the  boundary  and’  taken  possession  of  a 

^ The  government  of  the  United  States. 

“^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  478. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  177 

part  of  the  territory  in  dispute  between  the  two  governments,  and 
suggested  the  recall  of  these  persons  and  the  subjection  of  their 
conduct  to  judicial  inquiry.  Because  of  his  official  position  in  the 
province  he  claimed  the  “undoubted”  right  “to  seize  the  persons 
of  offenders  and  deal  with  them  according  to  the  laws”  of  New 
Brunswick.  Without  waiting  for  a reply  from  Governor  Smith, 
the  lieutenant  governor,  with  a small  military  force  and  some 
New  Brunswick  civil  officers,  made  his  way  up  the  St.  John  from 
Fredericton,  and  on  Sunday,  September  25th,  orders  were  circu- 
lated among  the  inhabitants  in  the  Madawaska  country  to  assem- 
ble at  the  Madawaska  chapel,  on  the  north  side  of  the  St.  John 
River.  In  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  Daniel  Savage,  one  of  the 
selectmen,  and  Jesse  Wheelock,  the  town  clerk,  were  arrested  for 
participation  in  the  organization  of  the  town  of  Madawaska;  and 
it  was  the  declared  purpose  of  the  force  thus  assembled  to  arrest 
all  others  who  had  voted  in  the  meetings  recently  held.' 

John  Baker,  who  has  left  on  record  this  information,  again 
comes  before  us  in  the  unfolding  of  events  connected  with  the 
appearance  of  Sir  Archibald  Campbell  in  this  visit  to  the  Mada- 
waska country.  Mr.  Baker  was  present  at  the  first  of  these  meet- 
ings and  in  all  probability  voted  with  others.  What  follows  is  a 
slightly  abbreffiated  account  of  what  Baker  says  occurred  on  the 
day  following  the  arrest  of  Savage  and  Wheelock. 

“About  twelve  o’clock,  on  Monday  September  26th,  I discov- 
ered about  twenty  canoes  coming  up  the  St.  John,  apparently  in 
great  haste,  with  one  or  more  men  in  each.  These  landed  on  the 
north  shore  at  my  mills,  and  at  a neighbor’s  landing  just  below. 
I retreated  to  a distance  and  watched  their  movements.  After 
examining  my  mills,  they  proceeded  to  my  dwelling  house,  where 
they  posted  sentinels  armed  with  muskets.  A part  proceeded  to 
other  houses  and  searched  them  also,  and  thence  returned  to  my 
house.  While  I remained  in  the  woods,  my  wife  came  to  me  and 
informed  me  that  Barnabas  Hunnewell,  Daniel  Bean  and  several 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  480. 


12 


178 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


French  settlers  were  held  as  prisoners  by  the  soldiers  then  at  my 
house;  that  Mr.  Miller,  the  high  sheriff  of  the  Province  of  New 
Brunswick,  had  searched  the  house  throughout,  and  afterwards 
directed  her  to  advise  me  to  surrender  myself  to  the  British 
authorities;  and  that  if  I would  go  to  Simon  Hebert’s^  house, 
where  the  governor  and  attorney  general  of  the  province  then 
were,  and  give  bail  for  my  appearance  at  the  court  in  Fredericton, 
I should  be  released;  that  it  was  in  vain  for  me  to  think  of  keep- 
ing out  of  the  way,  as  they  intended  to  garrison  the  territory  and 
force  me  into  a compliance  to  the  British  authorities. 

“While  I was  holding  this  conversation  with  my  wife  on  Mon- 
day afternoon,  I discovered  a horse-boat  coming  up  the  river  with 
about  fifty  armed  men  on  board.  These  landed  at  my  house,  and 
I was  informed  that  a detachment  of  them  were  to  proceed  up  the 
river  to  the  upper  settlement,  for  the  purpose  of  arresting  all 
other  persons  who  had  taken  part  in  the  town  meetings.  Upon 
this  information  I set  off,  about  sunset  for  the  upper  settlements, 
and  after  proceeding  through  the  woods  a distance  of  two  miles, 
I came  to  the  river  St.  John,  heard  the  discharge  of  muskets 
below,  and  supposed  the  soldiers  to  be  drilling.  I reached  the 
upper  settlements  about  three  of  the  clock  on  Tuesday  morning, 
gave  notice  of  the  approaching  danger,  and  all  the  male  inhab- 
itants but  six,  who  subsequently  fled,  retreated  into  the  woods 
with  me.  In  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  we  saw  the  armed  party 
come  up  the  river.  Finding  ourselves  pursued,  we  retreated  fur- 
ther into  the  woods.  This  party,  as  I was  informed  afterwards 
by  the  females  who  remained  at  the  houses,  was  divided  into 
detachments  which  severally  scoured  the  banks  of  the  river  on 
both  the  north  and  south  side,  in  search  of  us.  On  Wednesday 
morning  following,  we  came  back  to  one  of  the  houses,  and  saw 
the  armed  force  returning  down  the  river;  but  apprehending  that 
an  ambush  might  be  laid  for  us,  we  retreated  again  that  night 
farther  into  the  woods,  and  on  Thursday  ventured  back  to  the 
river.  We  then  met  one  Mrs.  Bartlett,  whom  we  had  sent  from 

1 In  Baker’s  deposition  the  name  is  Herbert. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MAD  AW  ASK  A.  179 


the  upper  settlement  on  the  preceding  Tuesday,  and  were  informed 
by  her  that  she  had  been  at  my  house  where  the  British  soldiers 
were  on  Wednesday,  having  four  American  prisoners  and  some 
French  settlers;  that  the  officers  of  the  armed  force  declared  their 
determination  to  garrison  the  settlements,  and  take  us  prisoners 
whenever  we  should  make  our  appearance;  and  instructed  the 
French  settlers  to  disregard  everything  done  by  the  American 
officers.  I have  not  been  at  my  house,  nor  with  my  family,  since, 
apprehending  that  I should  be  forthwith  imprisoned  if  taken  by 
our  pursuers.  Under  this  state  of  affairs,  I proceeded  forthwith 
on  Thursday  on  my  way  to  Portland,  where  I arrived  this  twelfth 
day  of  October,  1831.”^ 

Other  information  concerning  these  Madawaska  arrests  was 
sent  to  the  state  authorities  by  two  of  the  prisoners,  Savage  and 
Wheelock,  in  a joint  communication  addressed  to  Roscoe  G. 
Green,  secretary  of  state.  The  letter  was  commenced  at  Mada- 
waska on  September  28th,  and  completed  on  the  30th,  when  the 
prisoners  were  descending  the  St.  John  on  their  way  to  Frederic- 
ton, with  Barnabas  Hunnewell  and  Daniel  Bean,  as  fellow  prison- 
ers.* Of  these,  Wheelock,  Savage  and  Hunnewell  were  arraigned 
before  the  supreme  court  of  New  Brunswick  and  sentenced  to  pay 
a fine  of  fifty  pounds,  and  to  be  imprisoned  three  months.® 

When,  on  October  10,  1831,  Governor  Smith  replied  to  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Campbell’s  communication  of  September  13th, 
informing  him  that  some  citizens  from  Maine  had  “crossed  the 
boundary  line  actually  existing  between  the  two  countries  and 
taken  possession  of  part  of  the  territory  still  in  dispute,”  the 
governor  stated  that  this  was  the  only  authentic  information  he 
had  received,  and  expressed  regret  that  any  people  from  the  state 
should  have  committed  acts  of  the  kind  described  in  the  lieutenant 
governor’s  letter.  As  the  names  of  the  aggressors,  and  the  par- 
ticular nature  and  circumstances  of  the  transaction  had  not  been 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  480,  481. 

Ub.,  II,  475,  476. 

Hb.,  11,485. 


180 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


made  known  to  him,  he  was  unable  to  account  for  or  explain  the 
acts,  and  so,  if  possible,  to  prevent  them.  Two  gentlemen,^  how- 
ever, he  said,  had  been  appointed,  by  authority  of  the  Legislature 
of  Maine,  to  ascertain  the  number  of  persons  settled  on  the  public 
lands,  north  of  the  line  running  west  from  the  monument,  the 
manner  in  which  they  respectively  held  the  same,  and  to  report 
all  the  facts,  thus  enabling  the  state  to  adopt  some  mode  of  quiet- 
ing the  settlers  in  their  possessions.  These  gentlemen,  he  said, 
had  discharged  the  duties  thus  laid  upon  them,  but  no  formal 
report  of  their  proceedings  had  been  received,  “it  is  not  to  be 
presumed,”  he  added,  “that  they  are  the  persons  to  whom  allu- 
sion is  made  in  your  excellency’s  letter.”  With  this  suggestion. 
Governor  Smith  turned  to  the  last  paragraph  in  the  letter  of  the 
lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick,  in  which  the  latter  asserted 
his  imperative  duty  “to  maintain  inviolate  the  existing  bounda- 
ries” of  the  province  committed  to  his  charge;  and  he  reminded 
Sir  Alexander  that  if  by  “existing  boundaries”  he  meant  the 
boundaries  established  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  not,  and  never 
had  been,  the  intention  of  the  government  of  Maine  to  assert  any 
claim  or  jurisdiction  beyond  that  line.  If,  however,  a line  recently 
designated,  commencing  at  Mars  Hill,  was  intended,  the  atten- 
tion of  the  lieutenant  governor  was  called  to  the  fact  that  such  a 
line  had  never  been  recognized  by  Maine  as  the  limit  of  its  terri- 
tory and  jurisdiction.  As  this,  however,  was  a matter  now  pend- 
ing between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  the  governor 
said  he  would  forward  the  letter  to  the  president;  at  the  same 
time  he  assured  his  excellency  that  it  would  be  his  endeavor  to 
prevent  the  occurrence  of  anything  that  would  embarrass  nego- 
tiations or  disturb  the  harmony  existing  between  the  two  govern- 
ments.* 

By  this  time  Governor  Smith  had  received  a letter  addressed  by 
the  British  charge  d’affaires*  in  Washington  to  Mr.  Livingston, 

^ John  G.  Deane  and  Edward  Kavanagh.  Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  474. 

Ub.,  II,  470-472. 

® Lieutenant  Governor  Campbell,  of  New  Brunswick,  had  conveyed  early 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  181 


informing  him  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  in 
Maine  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  a part  of  the  disputed  territorj^ 
making  mention  of  an  order,  “issued  by  a justice  of  the  peace  for 
the  County  of  Penobscot  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Mada- 
waska,  to  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  choosing  municipal  officers.” 
In  the  letter  no  mention  was  made  of  the  arrest  of  Wheelock 
and  others,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  to  indicate  that  the  British 
charge  d’affaires  had  received  information  of  the  proceedings  that 
followed  the  call  to  assemble.^  In  his  note  of  October  5th,  Mr. 
Livingston,  by  request  of  the  president,  asked  Governor  Smith  for 
such  information  as  he  possessed  concerning  the  matters  of  which 
the  British  charge  d’affaires  had  complained,  and  expressed  the 
president’s  most  earnest  wish  that  no  measures  should  be  taken 
by  the  state  authorities  that  would  embarrass  the  government  of 
the  United  States  in  its  contemplated  handling  of  boundary  mat- 
ters at  the  ensuing  session  of  Congress.  The  letter  was  a serious 
appeal  to  the  governor  “to  avoid,  under  these  circumstances,  any 
unnecessary  exercise  of  authority  over  the  contested  ground,  and 
to  repress,  as  far  as  lies  in  your  power,  all  such  acts  as  may 
endanger  the  quiet  of  the  bordering  territory.”  " 

Replying  to  this  letter  on  October  12th,  Governor  Smith  trans- 
mitted a copy  of  a legislative  resolve  in  relation  to  persons  settled 
on  the  public  lands  without  title,  as  already  mentioned  in  his  let- 
ter of  October  10th,  adding,  “This  is  the  only  measure  adopted 

information  concerning  matters  at  Madawaska  to  Mr.  Bankhead,  who  trans- 
mitted the  intelligence  to  Lord  Palmerston,  saying  that  he  had  submitted  the 
complaint  of  the  lieutenant  governor  to  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
adding,  “I  trust  that  such  a communication  will  be  made  to  the  authorities 
of  Maine,  as  shall  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  irregularities  until  the  ques- 
tion of  disputed  territory  shall  be  finally  settled.  The  general  government 
is  most  anxious  to  avoid  the  slightest  collision  between  the  State  of  Maine 
and  his  Majesty’s  provincial  officers;  and  Mr.  Livingston  expressed  his  regret 
that  any  occasion  had  been  afforded  b\'  the  State  of  Maine  to  embarrass  the 
harmony  and  good  will  subsisting  between  the  two  countries.”  Urquhart, 
Exposition  of  the  Boundary  Differences,  32. 

^Resolves  of  Blaine,  II,  495,  496. 

Ub.,  II,  472,  473. 


182 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


by  this  department,  that  is  known  to  have  any  relation  to  the 
disputed  territory.”  In  close  connection  with  this  statement, 
the  governor  adds:  “An  act  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  at  their  last  session,  to  incorporate  the  town  of  Madawaska, 
which  is  bounded  in  part  by  the  line  of  the  State.  By  this  act, 
and  by  some  others,  I considered  that  it  was  intended  by  the  Leg- 
islature to  assert  the  claim  of  this  State  to  jurisdiction  over  that 
portion  of  the  territory  which  they  knew  to  be  within  the  limits 
of  Maine;  and  that  it  was  not  to  be  carried  into  effect  until  cir- 
cumstances should  render  it  proper  and  expedient.  The  measure 
that  is  said  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  inhabitants  of  that  terri- 
tory, of  voluntarily  organizing  themselves  into  a corporation,  was 
unexpected  by  me,  and  done  without  my  knowledge.  The  only 
information  received  at  this  department  in  relation  to  this  last 
mentioned  transaction,  is  contained  in  a letter  purporting  to  be 
signed  by  Jesse  Wheelock  and  Daniel  Savage,  who  are  personally 
unknown  to  me;  but  as  their  statement  is  corroborated  by  a letter 
from  a gentleman  at  Houlton  it  is  believed  to  be  substantially 
correct.”  ^ 

Many  years  later,  an  ex-governor  * of  Maine,  referring  to  this 
letter  in  a paper  on  the  northeastern  boundary  before  the  Maine 
Historical  Society,  said  that  down  to  this  period  in  the  boundary 
controversy,  he  could  find,  with  perhaps  a single  exception,  “no 
blot  on  the  history  of  this  State,  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of,  noth- 
ing to  hide  the  head  for,  but  a constant  exhibition  of  elevated  and 
dignified  patriotism — a proper  regard  for  the  integrity  and  honor 
of  the  Commonwealth.  But  after  this  succeeds  a term  which  we 
might  well  desire  to  have  expunged  from  our  annals.”  In  this 
connection  he  cited  Governor  Smith’s  words  in  this  letter  con- 
cerning the  act  of  the  Legislature  incorporating  the  town  of 
Madawaska,  and  his  understanding  with  reference  to  the  action 
contemplated  by  the  Legislature,  adding,  “What  a spectacle  is 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  474.  John  Baker  arrived  in  Portland  on  October  2, 
1831,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  saw  the  governor  on  that  day. 

*Hon.  Israel  Washburn. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  183 


here  ! The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  had  written 
the  Governor  of  Maine  a sharp  letter,  reproving  the  State,  in 
effect,  for  its  independent  and  proper  action.  And  the  Chief 
Magistrate,  who  but  a few  months  before  had  been  so  earnest, 
who  had  approved  an  act  to  incorporate  the  town,  when  the  peo- 
ple thereof,  in  good  faith,  supposing  the  act  of  the  Legislature 
meant  what  it  said — as  indeed,  it  did,  as  everybody  conversant 
with  its  history  well  knew — went  to  work  and  in  conformity  to 
its  provisions  organized  the  town — instead  of  planting  himself 
firmly  upon  the  act  of  the  Legislature  and  the  doings  of  his  peo- 
ple starts  back,  like  Fear  in  Collins’  Ode,  ‘E’en  at  the  sound 
himself  had  made.’ 

Of  course  Governor  Smith  might  have  taken  a different  attitude 
in  his  correspondence  with  the  secretary  of  state.  There  were 
others  than  Governor  Washburn  who  thought  he  should,  and 
that  the  Maine  executive  was  lacking  in  courage.  There  is  no 
evidence,  however,  that  anything  like  fear  controlled  Governor 
Smith’s  actions  at  this  time,  or  at  any  time.  His  high  character 
and  his  evident  purpose  faithfully  and  honorably  to  serve  the 
state  in  a difficult  situation  are  against  any  such  interpretation  of 
his  conduct  in  relation  to  the  national  government.  It  is  well 
known  that  in  the  Legislature,  at  the  time  of  the  Madawaska  leg- 
islation, there  was  a difference  of  opinion  with  reference  to  it. 
There  were  those  who  looked  upon  such  legislation  as  a call  to 
action  upon  the  border.  Others  regarded  it  as  a continued  asser- 
tion of  the  rights  of  the  state  to  that  portion  of  the  disputed 
territory,  believing  that  no  necessity  existed  for  carrying  the 
Madawaska  act  into  effect  forcibly  until  the  circumstances  were 
favorable.  This  last  was  the  view  held  by  Governor  Smith,  and 
his  view  seems  to  have  received  practical  vindication  at  the  fol- 
lowing state  election,  when  for  the  third  time  he  was  elected 
governor  of  Maine. 

While,  therefore,  the  action  of  the  inhabitants  of  Madawaska 
was  unexpected  by  the  governor,  as  he  stated  in  his  letter  to  the 

^ Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  53,  54. 


184 


IVIAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


secretary  of  state,  nevertheless,  as  the  inhabitants  had  acted  on 
territory  which  he  believed  was  within  the  known  limits  of  the 
State  of  Maine,  he  now  took  the  ground  that  they  were  entitled 
to  the  aid  and  protection  of  the  state.  Accordingly,  the  informa- 
tion concerning  conditions  at  Madawaska  which  Governor  Smith 
had  received  from  Mr.  Baker  was  at  once  transmitted  to  the  sec- 
retary of  state  at  Washington.  The  information  furnished  proof, 
he  said,  that  a number  of  the  citizens  of  Maine,  assembled  at  the 
south  side  of  the  St.  John  River,  and  on  territory  known  to  be 
within  the  limits  of  the  state,  had  proceeded  to  organize  them- 
selves, and  to  transact  other  business,  as  authorized  by  the  laws 
and  constitution  of  the  state.  This  led  to  the  arrest  of  Wheelock 
and  others  by  a military  force  accompanied  by  the  lieutenant  gov- 
ernor of  New  Brunswick  and  other  officials,  and  the  removal  of 
the  prisoners  to  Fredericton.  Others,  in  order  to  escape  arrest, 
had  abandoned  their  homes  and  fled  to  the  woods  for  concealment. 
In  their  behalf,  under  such  hard  circumstances,  the  governor 
asked  the  aid  of  the  national  government,  urging  the  adoption  of 
measures  to  procure  the  release  of  the  imprisoned,  and  to  protect 
the  state  from  foreign  invasion;  expressing  at  the  same  time  full 
confidence  that  such  measures  as  the  urgency  of  the  occasion  re- 
quired would  seasonably  be  adopted.  In  the  meantime,  he  said, 
it  would  be  his  endeavor  to  have  the  state  prepared  to  exert  the 
means  within  his  power,  which  would  be  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection and  the  security  of  her  citizens.^ 

On  receiving  this  letter  from  Governor  Smith,  dated  October 
13,  1831,  Secretary  Rivingston,  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Bankhead,  the 
British  charge  d’affaires  at  Washington,  citing  two  inclosed 
extracts  from  the  governor’s  letter  of  October  12th,  and  which 
already  have  been  cited,  remarked:  “By  the  first,  you  will  per- 
ceive that  the  election  of  town  officers  in  the  settlement  of  Mada- 
waska, of  which  complaint  was  made  in  the  papers  enclosed  in 
your  letter,  were  made  under  color  of  a general  law,  which  was 
not  intended  by  either  the  executive  or  legislative  authority  of 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  477,  478. 


s 


Samuei,  E.  Smith 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  185 

the  State,  to  be  executed  in  that  settlement,  and  that  the  whole 
was  the  work  of  inconsiderate  individuals.  By  the  second  extract, 
it  w’ill  appear  that  the  individuals,  said  to  have  been  prominent 
in  setting  up  the  authority  of  the  State,  have  been  arrested  bj" 
order  of  the  lieutenant  governor  of  the  province  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, and  were  on  their  way  to  be  imprisoned  at  Fredericton. 
The  innovation  on  the  existing  state  of  things  in  the  disputed  ter- 
ritory, being  distinctly  disavowed  by  the  executive  authority  of 
the  State,  no  act  of  authority  or  exercise  of  jurisdiction  having 
followed  the  election,  I would  respectfully  suggest  the  propriety 
of  your  recommending  to  the  Lieutenant  Governor  of  New  Bruns- 
wick the  release  of  the  prisoners  who  were  arrested  for  exercising 
this  act  of  authority  in  the  territory  mutually  claimed  by  the  two 
nations,  contrary  to  the  understanding  between  the  two  govern- 
ments.” ^ 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  in  this  statement  to  the  British 
representative  in  Washington,  Secretary  of  State  Livingston,  in 
minimizing  the  action  of  the  inhabitants  of  Madawaska,  made  a 
very  liberal  use  of  Governor  Smith’s  explanation  in  his  letter  of 
October  12th.  The  governor’s  letter  of  October  13th,  with  which 
were  transmitted  the  depositions  of  John  Baker  and  Phinehas  R. 
Harford,  did  not  sustain  the  representations  Mr.  Livingston  had 
made  to  Mr.  Bankhead;  and  on  October  21st,  in  a sharp  note  to 
Governor  Smith,  Mr.  Livingston  indicated  his  own  and  the  pres- 
ident’s displeasure  at  the  information  conveyed.  At  the  outset 
the  secretary  brought  against  Maine  the  charge  of  a clear  breach 
of  good  faith  in  not  adhering  to  arrangements  made  by  the  two 
countries  and  communicated  to  the  governor,  by  which  it  was 
distinctly  understood  that  there  was  to  be  no  exercise  of  state 
authority  in  the  parts  of  the  disputed  territory  actually  held  by 
the  British.  The  first  departure  from  this  understanding,  he 
said,  had  proceeded  from  the  persons  arrested  at  Madawaska. 
The  president,  under  any  such  circumstances,  could  not  look 
upon  the  presence  of  British  civil  and  military  ofiicials  at  Mada- 


^ Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  493-495. 


186  MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 

waska  as  an  “invasion.”  As  to  those  “ill-advised  persons”  who 
had  been  the  cause  of  these  new  troubles  on  the  border,  proper 
measures  would  be  taken  to  procure  their  release;  but  the  gov- 
ernor was  reminded  of  the  president’s  expectation  that  he  would 
use  his  influence  to  prevent  any  further  collision  with  the  British 
authorities,  in  the  firm  persuasion  that  the  wisdom  of  Congress 
would  direct  such  ultimate  measures,  as  would  bring  the  contro- 
versy to  a close,  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  United  States 
and,  particularly,  of  the  states  interested  in  the  question.* 

As  has  already  appeared,  the  relations  of  the  state  authorities 
to  the  national  government  during  the  boundary  controversy  had 
not  been  altogether  pleasant  at  times.  Here,  nearer  to  the  bor- 
der, there  was  a feeling  that  those  in  remote  seats  of  authority 
were  indifferent  to  concerns  with  reference  to  which  the  people  of 
Maine  had  very  deep  convictions.  Mr.  Livingston’s  language 
gave  evidence  of  restraint,  and  could  not  be  considered  otherwise 
than  as  meaning  more  than  was  expressed.  Governor  Smith’s 
reply,  which  was  not  made  until  November  10th,  also  indicated 
restraint,  opening  with  a reference  to  measures  that  had  been 
adopted  by  the  council  to  prevent,  if  possible,  any  further  collision 
between  citizens  of  Maine  and  the  authorities  of  New  Brunswick, 
until  the  meeting  of  Congress,  when  action  was  expected  that 
would  bring  the  long  controversy  to  a close.  The  governor  then 
referred  to  Hunnewell,  Wheelock  and  Savage,  who,  since  his  last 
letter,  had  been  arraigned  before  the  supreme  court  of  New  Bruns- 
wick and  sentenced  to  pay  a fine  of  fifty  pounds  and  to  be  impris- 
oned three  months.  They  were  now  in  jail  at  Fredericton  in 
execution  of  that  sentence.  He  accordingly  renewed  his  request 
for  the  aid  and  protection  of  the  United  States  in  their  behalf, 
reminding  the  secretary  that  these  men  had  been  imprisoned  “by 
a foreign  power  in  violation  of  the  sovereignty  of  this  State.” 

But  what  of  those  who  had  left  their  homes  at  Madawaska  for 
fear  of  arrest  by  the  British  authorities  on  account  of  their  partic- 
ipation in  the  Madawaska  meetings  ? Could  they  return  safely  to 


'^Resolves  of  Mahie,  II,  483,  484. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  187 

those  homes  ? It  was  understood  that  warrants  had  been  issued 
for  their  arrest,  and  should  such  arrests  follow,  the  governor 
expressed  apprehension  that  it  would  be  impossible  longer  to 
restrain  the  just  indignation  of  their  fellow  citizens  throughout 
the  state.  Unquestionably  Governor  Smith,  in  these  words, 
accurately  indicated  the  public  feeling  in  Maine  with  reference  to 
the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  the  parties  mentioned,  and  the 
fear  that  other  arrests  would  follow,  unless  the  national  govern- 
ment should  interpose  in  their  behalf. 

Concerning  the  position  relied  upon  by  the  British  authorities, — 
that  at  the  time  of  the  convention  for  submitting  to  arbitration 
the  jurisdiction  and  possession  de  facto  of  the  disputed  territory 
was  with  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  as  was  asserted  by  the 
secretary  of  state, — an  emphatic  denial  was  made  by  Governor 
Smith  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  Maine,  excepting  only  a small 
settlement  near  the  mouth  of  the  Madawaska  River.  In  order  to 
show  the  limited  and  uncertain  nature  of  such  jurisdiction  and 
possession  by  the  provincial  authorities  the  governor  called  atten- 
tion to  an  inclosed  letter^  by  John  G.  Deane,  an  agent  appointed 
by  the  state  to  obtain  information  relating  to  this  territory.  From 
the  facts  therein  stated  it  appeared,  he  said,  that  the  actual  pos- 
session and  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts  since  1792,  and  Maine 
since  her  separation,  had  been  greatly  more  extensive  and  con- 
tinued than  that  of  the  provincial  government.  “After  the  true 
St.  Croix  and  its  sources  were  ascertained  in  1798,  the  British 
ceased  to  exercise  any  acts  of  jurisdiction  over  the  settlement  at 
Madawaska  or  other  parts  of  the  territory  since  disputed;  and  for 
twenty  years,  until  the  commencement  of  the  controversy  respect- 
ing the  boundaries,  their  jurisdiction  was  not  resumed.  But 
since  that  time,  and  subsequently  to  1827,  when  it  is  supposed  the 
arrangement  before  alluded  to  was  made,  the  British  for  the  first 

time have  interfered  with  the  settlers  on  the  Aroostook, 

and  in  their  last  excursion  proceeded  to  the  settlement  to  arrest 
the  people  there,  many  miles  above  the  Madaw'aska,  and  further 


^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  488-492. 


188 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


than  they  had  before  extended  their  jurisdiction.”  These  facts, 
the  governor  said,  were  sufficient  to  show  that  the  arrangement  for 
preserving  the  existing  state  of  things  to  which  Mr.  Livingston 
referred,  had  often  been  violated  by  the  British  authorities.  They 
also  showed  the  necessity  of  exertion  on  the  part  of  the  people  of 
Maine  to  resist  the  progress  of  these  continued  encroachments, 
and  prevent  their  being  afterwards  used  by  their  opponents  as 
evidence  of  their  actual  possession  of  the  territory. 

The  governor,  also,  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Livingston  to 
the  continued  activity  of  the  New  Brunswick  authorities  in  the 
disputed  country,  showing  that  the  recent  conduct  of  the  govern- 
ment of  New  Brunswick  on  this  side  of  the  line  (designated  by 
the  king  of  the  Netherlands  as  in  his  opinion  a suitable  boundary) 
indicated  a practical  rejection  of  the  award.  Maine’s  interest  in 
the  result  of  this  controversy,  therefore,  added  the  governor, 
arises  not  more  from  the  value  of  the  territory  in  dispute,  than 
from  a desire  that  the  rights  guaranteed  other  by  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  may  be  preserved  inviolate.  It  was  from  a 
sense  of  duty,  accordingly,  that  the  governor  of  the  state  had 
governed  his  actions  in  his  relations  to  the  general  government, 
“l  trust,”  he  added,  “this  State  has  never  departed  from  the  deep 
respect  and  constitutional  deference  which  are  always  due  from 
each  member  of  the  Confederation  to  the  paternal  authority  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  During  the  whole  progress  of 
this  negotiation,  Maine  has  continued  respectfully  but  decidedly 
to  remonstrate  against  proceedings  directly  involving  her  rights 
and  interests  as  a State,  and  to  which  her  assent  was  never  re- 
quested; she  contends  that  the  United  States  have  not  the  power 
by  the  Federal  Constitution  to  alienate,  by  negotiation  or  other- 
wise, any  portion  of  the  territory  of  a State  without  the  consent 
of  such  State;  she  opposed  the  submission  of  the  question  to  arbi- 
tration; she  has  communicated  to  the  President  her  conviction 
that  the  award  of  the  Arbitrator  was  not  binding  upon  this  State 
or  upon  the  United  States,  and  has  protested  against  its  accept- 
ance. She  has  exerted  all  the  means  in  her  power  for  the  preser- 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  189 


vation  of  her  rights  and  territory;  and  if,  after  all,  the  wisdom  of 
Congress  shall  decide  that  the  interests  of  the  nation  require  the 
extraordinary  opinion  and  advice  of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands 
to  be  carried  into  effect,  from  necessity  alone  will  the  people  of 
this  State  be  compelled  to  submit.”  ^ 

With  these  firm,  yet  judicious  words.  Governor  Smith  defended 
himself  from  the  personal  reflections  contained  in  the  letter  of 
the  secretary  of  state,  and  vindicated  the  position  which  Maine 
all  along  had  maintained  in  her  endeavor  to  hold  fast  to  her  terri- 
tory and  to  her  constitutional  rights.  It  was  no  time  for  words 
of  resentment  and  indignant  denial.  Regarding  solely  the  inter- 
ests committed  to  him  by  the  state  of  which  he  was  the  chief 
magistrate,  the  governor  presented  his  case  in  such  a way  as  to 
give  the  State  of  Maine,  in  national  councils  with  reference  to 
the  boundary,  a place  it  had  not  previously  secured. 

The  reply  of  the  secretary  of  state,  dated  November  16,  1831, 
was  in  words  that  gave  evidence  of  the  reasonableness  and  force- 
fulness of  the  governor’s  letter.  It  should  be  given  in  full.  “l 
had  the  honor  this  morning  to  receive  your  Excellency’s  letter  of 
the  10th  instant,  with  its  inclosures,  all  which  were  immediately 
submitted  to  the  President,  who  directs  me  to  say  that  he  learns 
with  great  satisfaction  that  a meeting  of  the  Executive  Council 
has  been  held,  and  measures  adopted  to  prevent,  if  possible,  any 
further  collision  between  our  citizens  and  the  authorities  of  New 
Brunswick  until  the  meeting  of  Congress.  This  disposition  justi- 
fies the  confidence  he  felt  in  the  moderation  and  wisdom  of  the 
government  and  people  of  Maine,  and  he  instructs  me  to  add  the 
expression  of  his  belief  that  by  a perseverance  in  the  same  course, 
the  end  so  desirable  to  all,  may  by  the  intervention  of  Congress 
be  attained;  that  of  bringing  the  controversy  with  respect  to  the 
north-eastern  boundary  to  such  a close  as  may  consist  with  the 
interests  of  the  United  States  and  the  rights  of  the  State  of  Maine. 
In  the  meantime  measures  have  been  taken  which  it  is  expected 
will  procure  the  release  of  the  prisoners  confined  at  Fredericton.”" 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  485-488. 

Mb.,  II,  492,  493. 


190 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  6,  1831,  Presi- 
dent Jackson  expressed  the  satisfaction  he  had  in  saying  that 
suggestions  made  by  his  direction  to  the  charge  d’affaires  of  the 
British  government  in  Washington  had  resulted  in  securing  the 
release  of  the  prisoners  at  Fredericton.  In  obedience  to  a resolu- 
tion of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  calling  for  all  information 
in  the  possession  of  the  executive  “relative  to  the  capture,  abduc- 
tion and  imprisonment  of  American  citizens”  by  the  New  Bruns- 
wick authorities,  the  president,  December  13th,  transmitted  the 
documents  as  requested.  These,  having  appeared  as  a Senate 
Document,  were  printed  in  Maine  by  the  Legislature  and  in  at 
least  one  of  the  Maine  newspapers.^ 

In  his  annual  message  to  the  Maine  Legislature,  January  9, 
1832,  Governor  Smith  referred  to  the  arrest  of  Maine  citizens  at 
Madawaska  made  by  the  New  Brunswick  authorities,  and  to  the 
measures  adopted  by  the  state  for  securing  their  release  through 
the  department  of  state  at  Washington.  As  these  measures  were 
successful,  further  proceedings  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  Maine" 
were  rendered  unnecessary.  Also,  in  his  message,  Governor'Smith 
called  attention  at  some  length  to  Maine’s  relations  to  the  national 
government  in  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy.  He 
was  aware,  he  said,  that  the  opinion  was  generally  and  perhaps 
justly  entertained,  that  if,  before  the  negotiations  had  commenced, 
a different  course  had  been  adopted  by  the  state,  questions  that  had 
endangered  the  territorial  integrity  of  Maine  would  not  have  arisen. 
However  that  might  be,  as  matters  stood  at  present,  it  was  evident 
that  much  embarrassment  would  follow  the  adoption  of  measures 
for  enforcing  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  over  the  settlement  at 
Madawaska.  Such  measures  would  require  the  establishment  of 
a military  force  at  that  point,  thus  bringing  the  state  not  only 
into  collision  with  Great  Britain,  but  also  into  opposition  to  the 

^The  documents  accompanied  the  governor’s  message  of  January  9,  1832. 
The  Eastern  Argus,  Portland,  commenced  their  publication  on  the  following 
day. 

-Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  333,  334. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  191 


expressed  wishes  of  the  national  government.  Such  a condition 
of  affairs  could  not  be  expected  to  have  a favorable  effect  upon 
the  result  of  the  controversy.  He  believed,  therefore,  it  was  both 
necessary  and  expedient  for  the  state  to  rely  upon  the  national 
government  for  the  enforcement  of  its  rights.  When  we  appeal 
to  that  government  to  protect  our  territory  against  invasion,  he 
said,  “we  ask  not  a favor,  which  may  be  granted  or  withheld, 
but  claim  a right  which  the  constitution  authorizes  the  state  to 
demand.”  ^ 

That  part  of  the  governor’s  message  which  related  to  the  bound- 
ary was  referred  to  a joint  special  committee  of  the  Legislature. 
William  Pitt  Fessenden  was  a member  of  the  Legislature  at  this 
time.  Writing  at  Augusta,  January  13,  1832,  to  Charles  S. 
Daveis,  of  Portland,  he  gave  this  information:  “The  committees 
are  now  appointed,  and  you  will  see  that  the  boundary  business 
is  referred  to  a committee  of  thirteen.  They  have  appointed  a 
sub-committee.  The  character  of  a majority  of  the  large  commit- 
tee led  me  to  fear  that  no  very  strong  measures  would  be  adopted 

or  recommended, but  I am  informed  by  one  of  our 

friends,  who  is  a member  of  it,  that  he  has  proposed  divers  meas- 
ures agreed  upon  between  him  and  myself,  and  that  he  is  so  well 
seconded  by  us  and  two  of  the  other  side  that  he  hopes  to  carry 
them  all,  altho’  some  opposition  is  met  with  from  a few  who  fear 
it  may  affect  the  prospects  of  the  Jacksonians,  if  very  vigorous 
measures  are  adopted.  This  information  is  very  gratifying  to  me, 
and  will  be  so,  doubtless,  to  you.  I am  the  more  particularly 
pleased,  since  the  message  of  the  governor  and  some  outdoor 
information  had  satisfied  me  that  he  wished  to  hush  the  matter 
up  as  quietly  as  possible.  I think  now  that  fear  will  compel  the 
majority  to  come  up  to  the  work.  If  they  do  not,  there  are  some 
determined  men  among  us  who  will  not  hesitate  to  tell  all  the 
truth  they  know  upon  the  subject.  I think  a few  spirited  touches 
in  the  papers  from  the  right  source  might  do  good.”^ 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  232,  233. 

^Manuscript  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society. 


192 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Evidently  the  “spirited  touches  in  the  papers”  were  not  needed. 
The  committee  reported  on  the  following  day.  In  the  report' 
conditions  were  considered  with  reference  to  future  action.  While 
the  people  of  Maine,  it  was  insisted,  rightly  looked  to  the  national 
government  for  that  protection  which  the  federal  constitution 
guarantees  to  each  state  in  the  Union,  they  also  looked  to  the 
Legislature  of  Maine ; and  the  committee  reported  a series  of 
resolves,  in  which  the  position  of  the  state  with  reference  to  the 
boundary  was  so  vigorously  presented  as  to  meet  general  approval. 
The  resolves  as  adopted  were  as  follows: 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  invest  the 
general  government  with  unlimited  and  absolute  powers,  but  confers  only  a 
special  and  modified  sovereign!)',  without  authority  to  cede  to  a foreign 
power  any  portion  of  territory  belonging  to  a State,  without  its  consent. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  if  there  is  an  attribute  of  the  State  sovereignty  which  is 
unqualified  and  undeniable,  it  is  the  right  of  jurisdiction  to  the  utmost 
limits  of  State  territory;  and  if  a single  obligation  under  the  constitution 
rests  upon  the  confederacy,  it  is  to  g;uaranty  [^zV]  the  integrity  of  this  terri- 
tory to  the  quiet  and  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  the  States. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  doings  of  the  King  of  Holland,  on  the  subject  of  the 
boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  are  not  a decision  of 
the  question  submitted  to  the  King  of  the  Netherlands;  and  that  his  recom- 
mendation of  a suitable  or  convenient  line  of  boundary  is  not  obligatory  upon 
the  parties  to  the  submission. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  this  State  protests  against  the  adoption,  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  of  the  line  of  boundary  recommended  by  the  King 
of  Holland  as  a suitable  boundary  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States;  inasmuch  as  it  will  be  a violation  of  the  rights  of  Maine, — rights 
acknowledged  and  insisted  upon  by  the  general  government,  and  will  be  a 
precedent,  which  endangers  the  integrity,  as  well  as  the  independence,  of 
every  State  in  the  Union. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  Governor,  with  advice  of  the  Council,  be  authorized 
to  appoint  a competent  agent,  whose  duty  it  shall  be,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to 
repair  to  the  city  of  Washington  and  deliver  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States  a copy  of  the  preceding  report,  and  these  resolutions,  with  a request 
that  he  will  lay  the  same  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States;  and  also 
deliver  a copy  to  the  Vice  President,  to  each  of  the  heads  of  departments, 
and  to  each  member  of  the  Senate,  and  to  our  Representatives  in  Congress. 

^ The  report  was  signed  by  John  U.  Megquier,  T.  Boutelle,  William  Emer- 
son, Reuel  Williams,  Jeremiah  O’Brien,  Nathan  Clifford,  Joseph  M.  Gerrish, 
John  D.  McCrate,  Charles  Dummer,  James  Steele,  Charles  Jarvis.  Resolves 
of  Maine,  II,  342. 


OTHER  BOUNDARY  DISTURBANCES  AT  MADAWASKA.  193 

“Resolved,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Repre- 
sentatives requested,  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  prevent  our  State  from  being 
dismembered,  our  territory  alienated,  and  our  just  rights  prostrated,  by  the 
adoption  of  a new  line  for  our  northeastern  boundary,  as  recommended  by 
the  King  of  Holland. 

“Resolved,  That  the  agent  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  Council 
be  instructed  to  co-operate  with  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  advo- 
cating and  enforcing  the  principles  advanced,  and  positions  taken,  in  the 
foregoing  resolutions,  and  in  supporting  all  such  measures  as  shall  be  deemed 
best  calculated  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  our  State,  and  prevent  any  portion 
of  our  territory  and  citizens  from  being  transferred  to  a foreign  power.”  ^ 

These  resolutions  were  approved  January  19th,  and  on  the  24th 
additional  action  was  taken  by  the  legislature  of  Maine,  request- 
ing the  co-operation  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  (as 
joint  owner  with  Maine  of  the  territory  in  question)  in  such 
measures  as  were  best  calculated  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  the 
line  recommended  by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands.  Such  action 
was  taken,  and  the  Legislature  instructed  the  members  of  the 
Massachusetts  delegation  in  Congress  to  use  their  influence  against 
an  acceptance  of  the  arbitrator’s  award  by  the  national  govern- 
ment.^ 

Evidently  these  resolves  were  framed,  and  this  action  was 
taken,  because  of  a well-grounded  expectation  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  that  the  discussion  of  boundary  matters 
was  likely  to  be  transferred  to  Washington.  It  was  important, 
therefore,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States,  the  members 
of  Congress,  and  especially  the  senators  and  representatives  from 
Maine  in  both  houses  of  that  body,  should  have  before  them  such 
an  expression  of  the  views  of  the  people  of  Maine,  who  were  so 
strongly  interested  in  any  added  efforts  to  settle  the  boundary 
controversy. 

In  accordance  with  the  action  thus  taken , the  governor  appointed 
Judge  William  Pitt  Preble,  late  minister  to  The  Hague,  as  the 
agent  of  the  state  in  boundary  considerations  at  the  national  capital. 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  343,  344. 

^Report  of  committee,  24,  25. 


13 


CHAPTER  IX. 


I 


The  King’s  Award  Rejected. 

N accordance  with  his  instructions  Judge  Preble  proceeded 
to  Washington  without  delay,  reaching  the  national  cap- 
ital February  2,  1832.  On  the  following  morning  he 
called  on  President  Jackson,  and  delivered  to  him  the 
report  and  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Maine.  He 
also  at  once  entered  into  close  relations  with  the  Maine  senators 
and  representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  was 
informed  that  among  the  papers  concerning  boundary  matters 
recently  laid  before  the  Senate  was  a letter  from  Mr.  Bankhead, 
the  British  charge  d’affaires,  to  Mr.  Livingston,  insisting,  by 
order  of  his  government,  that  the  award  of  the  king  of  the  Neth- 
erlands was  binding  on  the  United  States,  and  calling  on  its  gov- 
ernment to  carry  the  arbitrator’s  decision  into  effect.  Shortly 
after,  he  had  a long  conversation  with  Mr.  Tazewell,  chairman  of 
the  senate  committee  on  foreign  relations,  who  maintained  that 
Maine,  in  resisting  the  recommendation  of  the  king  of  the  Neth- 
erlands, was  placing  her  own  interests  in  jeopardy;  that  the 
decision  of  the  arbitrator  was  far  more  favorable  to  the  rights  of 
Maine  than  he  had  expected;  and  that,  if  the  decision  were  set 
aside,  not  only  would  the  peace  of  the  country  be  endangered, 
but  the  embarrassments  arising  out  of  the  British  possession  and 
pretensions,  with  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  people  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, would  subject  Maine  to  great  and  constant  inconvenience 
and  vexation.  “He  was  ready  to  fight  if  Maine  said  so,”  but  he 
deemed  it  best  “to  pause  and  weigh  the  consequences.”  On  one 
point  he  was  fully  convinced,  “that  on  the  score  of  policy,  and 
with  an  eye  to  her  own  peace  and  her  own  best  interests,”  Maine 
would  act  more  wisely  by  acquiescing  in  the  award  than  by  con- 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


195 


tending  farther.  “We  cannot  get  rid  of  the  fact  that  the  arbiter, 
we  agreed  to,  has  pronounced  against  us.”  * 

This  information  Judge  Preble  forwarded  to  Governor  Smith  in 
a confidential  letter  dated  February  15th.  On  that  evening  he 
met  the  members  of  the  Maine  delegation  in  Congress  for  the  con- 
sideration of  Maine’s  prospects  with  reference  to  boundary  mat- 
ters as  viewed  in  Washington.  In  a report  of  the  meeting  to 
Governor  Smith,  written  very  early  in  the  morning  of  the  16th, 
Judge  Preble  stated  that  all  the  members  concurred  with  him  in 
the  apprehension  that  ultimately,  on  the  promise  of  an  indemnity 
from  the  government  of  the  United  States,  Maine  would  be  com- 
pelled to  acquiesce  in  the  arbitrator’s  award.  “We  do  not  despair 
altogether,”  he  said;  “yet  such  are  our  fears,  and  I deem  it  infi- 
delity to  the  interests  of  the  State  for  me  to  conceal  them  from 
you.”  He  also  reported  to  the  governor,  as  already  to  the  Maine 
delegation,  a conversation  he  had  held  with  the  secretary  of  state, 
Mr.  Livingston,  in  which  the  latter  referred  to  the  embarrassment 
of  the  national  government  because  of  the  present  posture  of 
affairs  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  The  administra- 
tion, he  said,  was  anxious  to  save  the  rights  of  Maine  and  pre- 
serve what  was  thought  to  be  the  honor  of  the  country.  Accord- 
ingly, without  undertaking  to  say  whether  Maine  was  right  or 
wrong  in  the  position  she  had  taken,  the  president  was  ready  to 
propose  that  Maine  for  an  indemnity  should  cede  to  the  United 
States  her  claim  and  jurisdiction  over  the  territory  northerly  and 
easterly  of  the  line  recommended  by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands, 
in  order  that  the  United  States  might  be  enabled  to  make  such  an 
arrangement  with  Great  Britain  for  bringing  the  boundary  con- 
troversy to  an  end  as  would  best  comport  with  the  interests  and 
honor  of  the  United  States,  Maine  to  authorize  her  agent  to  enter 
into  negotiation  with  such  person  or  persons  designated  by  the 
president  for  the  cession  of  jurisdiction  and  the  settlement  of 
the  indemnity.  The  agreement,  if  entered  into,  was  to  be  sub- 


^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  450,  451. 


196  MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 

ject  to  ratification  both  on  the  part  of  Maine  and  of  the  United 
States.^ 

The  views  of  the  Maine  delegation  were  sought  by  Judge  Preble 
with  reference  to  this  proposal.  With  the  exception  of  Mr. 
Evans,  all  were  in  favor  of  recommending  it  to  the  favorable  con- 
sideration of  the  Legislature  of  Maine;  and  on  February  16th, 
the  majority  of  the  delegation,  in  a written  statement  sent  to 
Judge  Preble,  stated  their  position  as  follows:  “it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  us  to  enlarge  upon  topics  on  which  all  parties  in  Maine 
are  agreed.  The  resolutions  adopted  by  both  branches  of  the 

Legislature  of  the  State,  and  approved  by  the  Governor 

are  entitled  to  and  have  received  our  respectful  attention,  and  we 
concur  fully  in  all  the  opinions  and  sentiments  they  express.  It 
is  our  settled  conviction  that  Maine  ought  not  to  consent  to  any 
dismemberment  of  her  territory,  to  be  made  merely  by  force  of 
the  late  pretended  award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands;  and  we 
do  not  believe  that  she  will  ever  acquiesce  in  any  violation  of  her 
constitutional  rights  as  a sovereign  State,  or  as  a member  of  this 
confederacy;  and  if,  in  the  proposal  now  submitted  to  us  there 
were  the  possibility  of  a construction,  which  would  yield  even  the 
smallest  particle  of  those  rights,  we  would  at  once  and  without 
hesitation  repel  the  offer,  however  advantageous  to  her  in  a pecun- 
iary view,  and  however  desirable  its  acceptance  might  be  to  the 
general  Government.  But  considering  as  we  do  that  the  very 
proposition  puts  us  upon  high  ground,  that  it  may  be  considered 
as  yielding  the  pretensions  heretofore  advanced  that  Maine  could 
have  no  voice  in  the  disposal  of  her  own  territory,  that  it  tacitly 
recognizes  the  rights  of  our  State,  and  by  implication  acknowl- 
edges the  justice  of  the  view  which  its  constituted  authorities 
have  constantly  taken,  we  are  at  liberty  to  turn  our  attention  to 
its  political  bearing  upon  Maine  and  upon  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  foreign  countries.” 

After  an  allusion  to  the  possibility  that  the  action  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  with  reference  to  the  award  of  the  king  of 


'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  452. 


George  Evans 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


197 


the  Netherlands  might  be  adverse  to  the  rights  and  interests  of 
Maine,  and  productive  of  consequences  which  might  for  years 
place  her  in  a position,  in  relation  to  her  sister  states,  that  would 
lead  to  discord  and  bitterness,  the  majority  members  of  the  dele- 
gation closed  their  written  statement  with  these  words:  “We  are 
therefore  of  the  opinion  that  the  proposition  of  the  Executive  of 
the  United  States  ought  to  be  met  by  the  State  of  Maine  in  the 
same  friendly  and  conciliatory  spirit  in  which  it  has  been  made, 
and  we  are  satisfied  that  in  so  doing  all  the  interests  of  Maine  will 
be  materially  promoted.”  ^ 

Mr.  Evans,  however,  was  not  in  agreement  with  the  majority 
of  the  delegation  as  to  the  course  which  should  be  pursued.  In 
his  judgment  matters  concerning  the  boundary  should  not  come 
up  in  this  informal  way.  If  the  general  government  was  embar- 
rassed in  its  proceedings,  and  desired  the  assent  of  Maine  to 
enable  it  to  act  freely,  it  should  formally  and  officially  signify  its 
wishes  to  the  government  of  Maine,  accompanied,  perhaps,  by 
propositions  on  its  part  for  deliberation  by  the  State  Legislature. 
“The  decided  measures  which  Maine  has  already  adopted,  seem 
to  me,”  he  said,  “to  preclude  any  advances  or  propositions  com- 
ing from  that  quarter.  She  stands  upon  her  rights,  and  has  no 
concessions  to  make.  They  who  wish  them  should  take  the  first 
steps  to  procure  them.”  He  would  not  have  the  State  of  Maine, 
therefore,  “propose  to  the  general  government  a cession  of  terri- 
tory, or  assent  to  the  line  for  an  indemnity  to  be  received,  until 
the  government  of  the  United  States  have  recognized  the  rights 
of  Maine  and  requested  that  assent  as  the  basis  of  its  action.”^ 
Undoubtedly  Mr.  Evans  had  suggested  the  best  procedure  in  ordi- 
nary circumstances;  but  Judge  Preble  and  the  associates  of  Mr. 
Evans  in  Washington  were  not  influenced  by  these  considerations. 
Maine  had  made  no  advances  for  a compromise  in  order  to  secure 
a settlement  of  boundary  differences.  The  proposal  was  an  in- 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  457-459.  The  signers  were  John  Anderson,  Rufus 
Mclntire,  Leo  Jarvis,  Cornelius  Holland,  James  Bates,  Edward  Kavanagh. 

2lb.,  II,  459-461. 


198 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


formal  one,  it  was  true,  but  it  had  come  from  the  president  of  the 
United  States;  it  recognized  the  rights  of  Maine  to  the  territory 
north  of  the  river  St.  John  and  east  of  the  river  St.  Francis,  and 
the  state  would  be  recompensed  for  its  loss  of  territory  by  the  pay- 
ment of  a suitable  indemnity.  Was  not,  then,  the  proposal  of  the 
president  worthy  of  consideration  by  the  governor  and  Legisla- 
ture of  Maine?  This  was  Judge  Preble’s  belief;  and  his  own 
letters  to  the  governor,  and  the  statements  of  the  Maine  congres- 
sional delegation  in  Washington,  were  hastened  to  their  destina- 
tion.‘ 

These  communications  the  governor  confidentially  laid  before 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  on  February  22nd,  and  asked  for 
their  consideration.  They  contained,  he  said,  a proposition  from 
the  general  government  for  a settlement  of  the  boundary  contro- 
versy by  negotiation,  and  he  stated  the  proposal  already  mentioned, 
and  the  views  of  the  agent  and  the  Maine  delegation  in  Congress 
concerning  it.  “The  decided  and  unanimous  opinion  of  our 
Agent  and  the  united  delegation  of  the  State  in  Congress,”^  he 
said,  “cannot  fail  to  be  received  with  great  deference,  and  under 
existing  circumstances  it  is  believed  that  an  arrangement  of  the 
kind  proposed  will  not,  in  any  respect,  compromise  the  honor  of 
the  State,  or  operate  injuriously  to  her  interest.  In  a pecuniary 
point  of  view,  she  will  be  amply  remunerated  for  the  loss  sus- 
tained, and  the  principle  for  which  she  has  uniformly  contended, 
that  the  United  States  have  not  constitutional  power  to  alienate 
any  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  State,  without  its  consent,  will 
not  be  abandoned.  The  adjustment  of  the  controversy  will  also 
relieve  the  United  States  from  much  embarrassment  in  their  rela- 
tions with  Great  Britain,  and  terminate  those  collisions  with  the 
British  authorities,  which  if  continued  would  inevitably  prevent 
the  settlement  of  the  territory  and  endanger  the  peace  of  the 
country. ’ ’ ® In  closing  his  message  the  governor  suggested  prompt 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  454-456. 

*The  minority  views  of  Mr.  Evans  were  not  mentioned. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  449. 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


199 


action  after  careful  consideration,  and  that  also  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts  should  be  requested  to  unite  in  the  proposed 
arrangement,  if  upon  consideration  its  acceptance  should  be 
deemed  expedient. 

Following  the  reading  of  the  message  the  Senate  went  into 
secret  session,  as  requested  by  the  governor,  and  the  papers  were 
referred  to  Messrs.  Boutelle,  Megquier,  Emerson,  Thayer  and 
Sweat.  On  the  following  day  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
a secret  session,  at  which  the  consideration  of  the  governor’s 
message,  and  the  papers  accompanying  it,  were  referred  to  Messrs. 
Clifford,  Gerrish,  McCrate,  Williams,  Steele,  Jarvis,  O’Brien, 
Bronson,  Knowlton  and  Miller.  Naturally  it  very  soon  became 
known  in  Augusta  that  both  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives were  holding  secret  sessions,  with  matters  relating  to 
the  boundary  under  discussion.  On  March  3rd,  adding  to  com- 
mon rumors,  the  Maine  Daily  Journal  (published  in  Augusta) 
laid  before  its  readers  a communication  signed  “Truth,”  intro- 
duced by  an  editorial  note:  “We  found  the  following  communi- 
cation in  our  letter  box,  in  a handwriting  unknown  to  us.  Of 
course  we  can  say  nothing  of  its  authenticity,  but  as  it  may  afford 
some  clue  to  the  secret  proceedings  of  the  Eegislature  on  a subject 
in  which  the  people  feel  a deep  interest,  we  venture  to  publish.” 
The  communication  opened  with  these  words:  ‘ ‘Suppose  the  Leg- 
islature of  Maine,  in  secret  session,  being  bound  by  the  solemnity 
of  an  oath,  should  vote  to  sell  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  State  to 
the  British  government,  and  thereby  become  British  subjects, 
would  that  oath  be  binding  on  those  who  do  not  agree  to  the  bar- 
gain or  sale ; or  ought  they  to  speak  and  warn  the  people  of  their 
before  it  is  too  late?”  Other  questions  followed.  “Sup- 
posing such  a question  before  the  Legislature  and  under  consid- 
eration in  secret  session,  would  it  be  proper  for  the  party  being 
the  majority  to  hold  a party  caucus  and  admit  gentlemen  who  are 
?iot  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  then  and  there  discuss  the  pro- 
priety of  such  questions  ? Suppose  in  secret  session  the 

whole  number  of  votes  to  have  been  149,  80  of  whom  were  in 


200 


MAINB  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


favor  of  selling  a part  of  our  State  to  Great  Britain  and  69  against 
it,  ought  not  the  69  to  take  aholdst  and  make  the  plot  known  to 
their  constituents,  or  are  they  bound  by  their  oath  to  be  gagged 
on  such  a momentous  question?  These,  Messrs.  Editors,  are 
questions  of  deep  interest,  and  I wish  you  would  give  me  your 
opinion  on  them.” 

Such  an  opinion  the  editors  declined  to  give.  “We  know  not,” 
was  the  answer,  “that  such  a case  has  happened.  We  only  know 
that  distinguished  Jackson  leaders  are  here  from  distant  parts  of 
the  State;  that  the  House  sat  in  secret  on  Thursday  afternoon 
until  half-past  ten  o’clock  at  night;  that  the  Senate  again  yester- 
day sat  forenoon  and  afternoon  in  secret.  We  only  ask,  what 
does  all  this  mean  ? Are  we  to  give  up  a part  of  our  State  by 
some  secret  arrangement  which  will  not  bear  the  light?  Who 
calls  on  us  for  such  a sacrifice — such  a humiliation?  And  so 
immediately,  too,  after  sending  a special  agent  to  Washington 
with  a solemn  protest ! ’ ’ 

Of  course,  as  has  already  appeared,  the  proposal  before  the 
Legislature  had  no  reference  to  the  sale  of  Maine  territory  to 
the  British  government.  Naturally  erroneous  impressions  were 
received  in  the  aroused  state  of  feeling  among  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  when  the  governor  read  his  message  and  presented 
the  papers  from  Washington  that  accompanied  it.  Mr.  Jacob 
Ludden,  of  Canton,  a member  of  the  House,  evidently  received 
the  same  erroneous  impression  as  “Truth.”  In  a speech  in  the 
House,  while  the  matter  was  under  discussion,  he  uttered  these 
words:  “What,  sir!  Bargain  our  American  territory  and  Ameri- 
can citizens  for  land  or  cash  ? Sell  our  citizens  without  their  con- 
sent? Sell  them  to  the  British,  and  to  become  subjects  of  a British 
King?  Sir,  history  informs  us  of  only  one  solitary  instance  in 
this  republic  where  a bargain  of  this  kind  was  ever  attempted; 
and  that  was  at  West  Point,  in  the  secret  session  held  by  Benedict 
Arnold  and  Major  Andre.  Our  title  to  the  territory  is  indisput- 
able. It  was  purchased  for  us.  The  price  was  blood — the  blood 
of  our  fathers.  And  shall  we,  sir,  like  Esau,  sell  our  birthright 


THE  king’s  award  rejected. 


201 


for  a mess  of  pottage?  No,  sir!  Heaven  protect  us  from  such 
disgrace.”  ^ 

Other  and  equally  startling  reports  soon  found  their  way  into  the 
columns  of  Maine  newspapers.  The  Hallowell  Advocate,  inform- 
ing its  readers  that  “rumors  of  the  most  painful  character  were 
afloat,”  and  that  the  public  mind  was  becoming  much  excited, 
mentioned  as  the  most  generally  credited  of  these  rumors  that  the 
president  had  expressed  an  anxious  wish  to  acquiesce  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Dutch  king;  that  the  state  government  had  been  made 
acquainted  with  the  president’s  troubled  thoughts;  and  that  in 
order  to  secure  legislative  sanction  to  the  proposal  the  hope  had 
been  held  out  that  Congress  would  provide  a recompense  if  Maine 
would  “give  up  the  territory  quietly  and  make  no  noise  about  it.” 
The  Norridgewock  Journal  had  not  only  heard  a rumor  that  the 
Maine  Legislature,  after  spending  two  days  in  secret  session,  had 
‘ ‘agreed  to  sanction  Jackson  in  giving  up  our  territory,  ’ ’ but  added 
that  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  its  truth.  “People  of  Maine! 
what  think  you  of  this  procedure?”  the  editor  eagerly  asked. 
“Are  you  prepared  to  sanction  such  flagitious  conduct?  Are  you 
prepared  to  see  a large  portion  of  the  State  given  to  a foreign  gov- 
ernment by  a reckless  majority  of  your  Legislature,  merely  to 
gratify  the  wishes  of  Andrew  Jackson  and  Martin  Van  Buren?” 

Party  feeling  evidently  had  been  stirred  by  these  and  similar 
editorials  appearing  under  such  headlines  as  “Maine  in  the 
Market!”  “Our  Fellow  Citizens  Transferred  to  a For- 
eign Power  for  Cash  or  Land!”  As  early  as  the  6th  of 
March,  however,  the  Eccstern  Argus,  published  in  Portland,  had 
learned  that  “Truth”  had  not  stated  the  case  before  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Maine  as  it  should  have  been  stated.  It  had  not  been  pro- 
posed, remarked  the  editor,  that  the  Legislature  should  vote  to 
sell  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  state  to  the  British  government. 
“This  statement  in  our  apprehensions,”  he  added,  “carries  false- 

^This  extract  appeared  in  the  Portland  Advertiser,  March  19,  1832,  under 
the  heading  ‘‘An  Honest  Man.”  The  editor  refers  to  Mr.  Ludden  as  ‘‘a 
Jackson  member,”  and  adds,  ‘‘The  man  that  possesses  such  feelings  is  wor- 
thy of  the  name  American.” 


202 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


hood  on  its  face.  An  individual  State  is  not  competent  to  enter 
into  a treaty  with  a foreign  State.  The  State  has  the  authority 
to  cede  a part  of  its  territory  to  the  United  States.  Such  things 
have  been  done.  The  State  of  Georgia  ceded  a large  part  of  her 
territory  to  the  United  States  for  an  equivalent.  Virginia  and 
other  States  ceded  the  northwestern  territory,  now  comprising 
several  States  of  the  Union,  to  the  United  States.  And  Maine 
has  the  authority  to  cede  part  of  her  territory,  if  she  pleases,  to 
the  United  States.” 

Three  days  later,  March  9th,  the  removal  of  the  injunction  of 
secrecy  with  reference  to  the  action  of  the  Legislature  revealed 
the  fact  that  the  people  of  Maine  had  been  misinformed  concern- 
ing the  proposal  received  from  Washington.  The  action  by  the 
Legislature  was  approved  by  the  governor  March  3d.  In  it  there 
was  no  proposal  to  cede  any  portion  of  the  territory  of  Maine  to 
Great  Britain.  All  that  the  national  government  had  suggested 
was  that  Maine,  for  a suitable  indemnity,  should  cede  to  the 
United  States  that  portion  of  her  territory  which  lies  northerly 
and  easterly  of  the  line  recommended  by  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands, so  that  the  government  of  the  United  States,  seeking  a set- 
tlement of  the  boundary  controversy,  might  be  able  to  make  an 
arrangement  with  Great  Britain  as  would  secure  the  desired 
result.  The  Legislature,  it  was  added,  regarded  the  proposition 
as  emanating  from  a disposition  upon  the  part  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment to  promote  the  interests  and  the  peace  of  the  nation, 
without  violating  the  rights  of  Maine,  or  disregarding  the  obli- 
gation resting  upon  the  whole  Union  to  protect  each  state  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  all  its  territory  and  right  of  jurisdiction,  and 
willing  to  nleet  the  proposition  in  a like  spirit  in  which  it  is 
believed  to  have  been  taken.  It  had  accordingly  therefore 

“Resolved,  That  upon  the  appointment,  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  of  a person  or  persons  to  enter  into  negotiation  with  this  State  for  the 
relinquishment,  by  this  State  to  the  United  States,  of  her  claim  to  said  terri- 
tory and  for  the  cession  of  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  on  the  one  part;  and  for 
an  ample  indemnity  therefor,  on  the  other  part,  and  notice  thereof  being 
communicated  to  the  Governor,  the  Governor,  with  advice  of  Council,  be  and 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


203 


he  is  hereby  authorized  and  requested  to  appoint  three  Commissioners  on  the 
part  and  in  behalf  of  this  State,  to  treat  with  such  person  or  persons,  so 
appointed  by  the  President,  on  the  subject  aforesaid;  and  any  agreement  or 
treaty,  to  be  made  in  pursuance  of  this  resolve,  is  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Legislature  of  Maine  for  approval  or  rejection;  and  until  such  agreement  or 
treaty  be  so  submitted  to,  and  approved  by,  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  noth- 
ing herein  contained  shall  be  construed,  in  any  way,  as  implying  the  assent 
of  this  State  to  the  line  of  boundary  recommended  by  the  arbiter,  or  to  the 
right  of  the  general  Government  to  adopt  or  sanction  that  line  instead  of  the 
line  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783.” 

The  governor  was  also  requested  to  communicate  this  action 
confidentially  to  the  agent  of  the  state  in  Washington,  and  also  to 
the  governor  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  thus  afford- 
ing the  mother  state  the  opportunity  of  adopting  such  measures 
as  she  might  consider  expedient  because  of  her  interest  in  the 
territory  mentioned.' 

In  this  action  of  the  Legislature  the  alignment  seems  to  have 
been  one  of  political  parties.  Hitherto,  in  the  long  controversy 
with  reference  to  the  boundary,  there  had  been  on  the  part  of  the 
people  of  Maine  complete  unity  both  in  feeling  and  in  action. 
When  there  was  discussion  with  those  outside  of  Maine,  only  one 
voice  was  heard , a voice  always  insisting  that  the  northeastern 
boundary  was  described  by  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  could  be  determined.  Now,  a large  minority  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, aligning  itself  politically  as  did  the  majority,  had  registered 
its  opposition  to  the  action  just  recorded. 

But  who  was  “Truth,”  who  had  ventured  to  give  to  the  public 
early  information  concerning  the  secret  session  deliberations  of 
the  Legislature?  Mr.  Luther  Severance,  the  editor  and  one  of 
the  publishers  of  the  paper  in  which  the  objectionable  communi- 
cation appeared,  was  summoned  before  a committee  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  questioned  concerning  it.  In  his  intro- 
duction to  the  communication  as  published  he  had  stated  that  it 
was  found  in  his  letter  box,  and  the  added  information  was  now 
drawn  from  him  that  before  its  reception  he  had  a hint  that  such 
a communication  might  be  expected;  but  when  he  was  asked  who 


"^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  465-467. 


204 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


gave  to  him  the  hint,  he  declined  to  answer.  As  he  afterward 
stated  in  his  paper,  he  was  threatened  with  punishment  by  the 
House  “for  refusing  to  help  them  keep  their  own  secrets.”  “We 
trust  we  shall  always  hold  the  ‘rights  of  the  House’  in  proper 
respect,”  he  added,  “but  we  do  not  mean  to  forego  our  own 
rights;  and  above  all  we  mean  to  regard  the  Rights  of  the 
People,  one  of  which  rights  is  to  know  what  their  representa- 
tives are  doing.”  When  the  committee  reported  to  the  House  on 
the  evening  of  March  7th,  the  discussion  that  followed  made  it 
plain  that  the  leading  members  were  in  agreement  that  the  House 
had  no  constitutional  right  to  punish  other  than  its  own  members, 
or  as  was  said  by  Mr.  Edward  Kent,  afterward  governor  of  Maine, 
“become  accusers,  judges,  and  executioners;  a grand  jury,  trav- 
erse jury,  court  and  sheriff,  all  in  one  breath.”  When  on  March 
9th  the  injunction  of  secrecy  was  removed  with  reference  to  delib- 
erations in  the  secret  session,  it  appeared  that  the  following  action 
had  been  taken:  “Resolved,  That  said  Luther  Severance,  in  re- 
fusing to  answer  the  question  propounded  to  him  by  a committee 
of  this  House,  has  set  at  defiance  the  power,  and  violated  the 
rights  of  this  House,  and  is  liable  to  be  proceeded  against  for 
contempt.  ’ ’ ^ Governor  Washburn  states  that  Mr.  Severance  ‘ ‘was 
committed  to  the  Augusta  jail  for  contempt,  from  which,  how- 
ever, he  was  soon  released.”^  Search  for  any  confirmation  of 
this  statement  has  not  been  rewarded,  and  the  House  seems  to 
have  gone  no  farther  in  the  matter  than  to  assert  liability  to  pro- 
cedure for  contempt.® 

In  accordance  with  the  action  of  the  Legislature  approved  March 
3rd  and  with  the  advice  of  the  council.  Governor  Smith  appointed 
William  Pitt  Preble,  Reuel  Williams  and  Nicholas  Emery  com- 
missioners for  the  State  of  Maine.  As  commissioners  representing 

^Mahie  Daily  Journal,  March  9,  1832. 

"^Maine  Hislorical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  58. 

^At  a dinner,  tendered  to  Mr.  Severance  by  about  one  hundred  citizens  of 
Augusta  at  the  “new  Augusta  Hotel,’’  the  freedom  of  the  press  received 
considerable  attention,  mingled  with  ardent  congratulations  to  Mr.  Severance. 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


205 


the  United  States,  the  president  appointed  three  of  the  members 
of  his  cabinet,  Edward  Livingston,  secretary  of  state,  Louis 
McLane,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  and  Levi  Woodbury,  secretary 
of  the  navy.  The  Maine  commissioners  reached  Washington 
May  18th,  and  on  the  following  day  they  had  an  interview  with 
President  Jackson.  At  this  time  the  president  stated  that  he  had 
invested  the  commissioners  of  the  United  States  with  full  power 
to  enter  into  any  agreement  so  far  as  he  could  act  constitutionally, 
since  whatever  was  done  by  the  commission  must  be  submitted 
to  Congress  in  order  to  give  it  validity.  Then,  turning  to  the 
two  of  his  own  commissioners  who  were  present,  he  instructed 
them  to  enter  as  soon  as  possible  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
matters  committed  to  them,  it  being  his  wish,  he  said,  “not  to 
have  any  diplomacy  about  it.”  The  Maine  commissioners,  in 
reply,  assured  the  president  that  the  course  he  had  suggested  was 
most  agreeable  to  them;  and,  referring  to  what  he  had  said  con- 
cerning congressional  action,  they  reminded  the  president  that  no 
action  of  the  commissioners  would  be  obligatory  on  the  state  they 
represented  until  such  action  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Maine 
Legislature.^ 

On  March  21,  1832,  and  therefore  after  the  action  of  the  Maine 
Legislature  accepting  the  president’s  proposal,  the  committee 
on  foreign  relations  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  made 
a report  with  reference  to  boundary  matters.  At  its  close  the 
report  recommended  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

‘ ‘That  the  Senate  advise  the  President  to  express  to  his  Majesty 
the  King  of  the  Netherlands  the  assent  of  the  United  States  to  the 
determination  made  by  him  and  consent  to  the  execution  of 
the  same.”  The  printing  of  the  report,  “in  confidence  for  the 
use  of  the  Senate,”  was  authorized,  and  the  subsequent  proceed- 
ings of  the  Senate,  when  boundary  matters  were  under  considera- 
tion, were  also  in  secret  session — a reminder  of  recent  similar 
sessions  of  the  Maine  Legislature. 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  63,  64. 


206 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Not  long  after  their  arrival  in  Washington,  the  Maine  commis- 
sioners, learning  that  the  above  mentioned  report  had  not  again 
been  before  the  Senate,  requested  the  Maine  senators,  Messrs. 
Holmes  and  Sprague,'  to  have  the  consideration  of  the  report  still 
further  delayed.  On  June  9th,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  from  these 
senators  as  to  the  progress  of  the  commission,  the  Maine  commis- 
sioners stated  that  as  yet  their  conferences  had  been  without  defi- 
nite result,  and  they  suggested  that  “a  refusal  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate  to  adopt  and  sanction  the  line  recommended  by  the  king  of 
the  Netherlands  was  exceedingly  desirable,  if  not  indispensable.”^ 
The  Senate  on  June  12th,  probably  in  accordance  with  an 
arrangement  made  by  the  Maine  senators,  commenced  the  con- 
sideration of  the  boundary  resolution  reported  on  March  21st. 
Unfortunately  the  Congressional  Debates  of  that  time  contain  no 
report  of  the  discussion  that  followed.  After  the  injunction  of 
secrecy  was  removed  by  the  Senate  at  the  close  of  the  debate, 
however,  two  of  the  senators,  Mr.  Sprague,  of  Maine,  and  Mr. 
Clay,  of  Kentucky,  furnished  their  speeches  for  publication.^ 
From  these  we  learn  that  Mr.  Tazewell,  chairman  of  the  commit- 
tee, opened  the  debate,  and  that  Mr.  Holmes,  of  Maine,  and  Mr. 
Miller,  of  South  Carolina,  were  among  those  who  participated 
in  it. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  his  address,  took  the  ground  that  there  was  noth- 
ing before  the  Senate  requiring  action  in  the  present  state  of  the 
boundary  controversy.  If  the  award  of  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands was  binding,  he  said,  it  derived  its  validity  from  the  con- 
sent of  the  parties  referring  the  subject  to  him,  and  also  from  his 

^ Hon.  Peleg  Sprague.  He  had  been  for  many  years  a prominent  lawyer  in 
Hallowell.  For  two  terms  (1825-1826,  1827-1828)  he  had  been  a member  of 
the  national  House  of  Representatives.  From  1829  to  1835  he  was  a member 
of  the  Senate.  Not  long  after  the  close  of  his  congressional  service  he 
removed  to  Boston,  and  was  made  judge  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  that  district.  He  was  one  of  the  original  members  of  the  Maine 
Historical  Society. 

"^Manuscript  Correspondeiice , etc..  Northeastern  Boundary , State  Library, 
HI,  75,  76. 

^Congressional  Debates,  1831-1832,  VHI,  Part  I,  1399-1417. 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


207 


having  decided  the  case  in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  sub- 
mission. If  the  arbitrator  had  not  decided  it,  or  if,  in  deciding  it, 
he  had  transcended  the  terms  of  the  submission,  it  was  not  bind- 
ing, and  the  action  required  must  come  from  the  president.  If 
the  latter  tells  the  British  government  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  does  not  hold  itself  bound  by  the  award,  a negotia- 
tion would  probably  take  place  between  the  parties.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  the  president  notifies  the  British  government  that  the 
United  States  are  bound  by  the  award,  he  would  then  have  to 
come  to  Congress  for  legislative  aid  in  carrying  the  award  into 
effect.  As  a senator,  therefore,  he  could  not  vote  for  the  resolu- 
tion reported  by  the  committee  on  foreign  relations.  However, 
he  had  very  positive  views,  he  said,  on  the  whole  northeastern 
boundary  matter.  As  secretary  of  state  in  an  earlier  administra- 
tion, it  became  his  duty  to  examine  into  the  claim  asserted  by 
Great  Britain,  an  examination  that  resulted  in  a strong  conviction 
that  the  British  claim  was  unfounded  and  that  the  right  to  the 
disputed  territory  was  in  the  State  of  Maine.  As  to  the  king  of 
the  Netherlands  and  his  award,  he  held  that  by  the  resolution  in 
Belgium,  the  king  was  stripped  of  the  better  half  of  his  dominions, 
leaving  him  king  of  Holland  alone.  Yet  it  was  not  to  the  king  of 
Holland,  but  to  the  king  of  Belgium  and  Holland,  that  the  bound- 
ary question  was  referred.  It  was  of  a monarch  supposed  to  be 
unbiased,  powerful  and  independent,  that  a decision  was  asked, 
and  not  of  a sovereign,  who,  as  the  result  of  a revolution,  found 
one-half  of  his  own  dominions  the  subject  of  British  arbitration  or 
decision  in  conjunction  with  other  allied  powers.  By  the  loss  of 
Belgium,  the  political  character  of  the  king  was  changed,  and  he 
ceased  to  be  that  friendly  sovereign  whose  services  as  arbitrator 
had  been  solicited.  Moreover,  the  king  had  not  definitely  decided 
the  questions  submitted  to  him.  The  paper  communicated  by 
him  to  the  two  governments  did  not  contain  a decision,  but  only 
an  opinion  as  to  what  he  thought  might  be  regarded  as  a suitable 
boundary,  leaving  the  parties  concerned  to  adopt  it  or  not  as  the}"- 
deemed  best.  Therefore  he  could  not  concur  with  the  committee 


208 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


on  foreign  affairs  in  recommending  that  the  president  be  advised 
to  express  to  the  arbiter  the  assent  of  the  United  States  to  the 
determination  reached  by  him  and  consent  to  the  execution  of 
the  same.  He  was  also  of  the  opinion  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  declining  to  be  bound  by  the  king’s  award,  ought 
to  open  a negotiation  with  Great  Britain  with  reference  to  a set- 
tlement of  the  boundary  controversy.' 

Mr.  Sprague,  on  the  following  day,  spoke  at  greater  length  than 
Mr.  Clay.  He  contended,  as  did  Mr.  Clay,  that  the  king  of  the 
Netherlands  had  given  no  decision  upon  the  matters  submitted  to 
him,  and  that  his  opinion  and  recommendation  with  Reference  to 
the  boundary  was  not  binding  upon  the  United  Statesf  'The  report 
of  the  committee  on  foreign  affairs,  in  effect,  had  made  that  con- 
cession in  its  report.  Referring  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
the  speaker  showed  that  the  arbitrator,  without  even  professing  to 
answer  the  questions  submitted  to  him,  had  only  recommended 
the  substitution  of  a new  boundary.  Against  such  a new  delimi- 
tation, the  State  of  Maine  had  protested;  and  he  proceeded  to 
argue  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  had  no  constitu- 
tional authority  to  adopt  new  lines  of  demarcation  in  the  disputed 
territory  without  the  consent  of  the  State  of  Maine.  This,  he  said, 
she  has  never  yielded.  “Have  now  considerations  of  expediency 
been  invoked?  Well,  as  senators,  the  answer  is,  Our  faith  is 
plighted  to  the  State  of  Maine  to  preserve  inviolate  the  integrity 
of  its  soil,  and  to  vindicate  the  sacredness  of  the  persons  of  its 
inhabitants.  But  will  not  war  be  the  consequence  of  a refusal  to 
accede  to  this  advisory  opinion  of  the  arbitrator  ? ’ ’ Mr.  Sprague 
did  not  believe  it.  He  could  not  think  that  Great  Britain  would 
go  to  that  extent  for  a cause  so  grossly  unjust,  for  a pretension 
so  recent,  so  utterly  baseless.  This  subject,  he  said,  should  not 
be  discussed  as  presenting  a question  of  peace  or  war,  or  even  a 
matter  of  general  expediency.  Maine  stands  modestly,  but  firmly, 
upon  her  rights.  She  asks  nothing  more — she  can  accept  nothing 
less. 

'^Congressional  Debates,  1831-1832  ,VIII,  Part  I,  1412-1418. 


Peleg  Sprague 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


209 


In  this  connection  Mr.  Sprague  alluded  to  the  recent  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Maine  in  secret  session  as  impairing 
the  force  of  Maine’s  appeal  on  the  ground  of  her  rights.  He  was 
apprehensive,  he  said,  that  this  action  by  the  Legislature  might 
weaken  her  cause.  Nor  did  he  believe  it  represented  the  settled 
views  of  the  people  of  Maine.  “Let  me  assure  you,”  he  said, 
“that  the  change  of  views  and  feelings  indicated  by  the  secret 
proceedings  of  the  Legislature,  so  far  from  meeting  a harmonious 
response  from  their  constituents,  have  been  received  by  a general, 
if  not  universal,  note  of  popular  disapprobation.  Sir,  the  people 
of  Maine  have  never  authorized  or  assented  to  any  suggestion  of 
a relinquishment  of  any  portion  of  their  soil,  or  of  their  fellow- 
citizens;  and  from  their  character,  their  history,  as  well  as  the 
strong  recent  demonstrations  of  their  feelings  and  opinions,  I am 
confident  they  never  will.”  ^ 

The  resolution  under  discussion,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  as 
follows:  “That  the  Senate  advise  the  President  to  express  to  his 
Majesty  the  King  of  the  Netherlands  the  assent  of  the  United 
States  to  the  determination  made  by  him,  and  consent  to  the  exe- 
cution of  the  same.”  Several  amendments  were  offered  during 
the  progress  of  the  debate.  The  first  of  these,  made  by  Mr. 
Holmes  on  June  12th,  proposed  to  add,  after  the  word  ‘ ‘Resolved,  ’ ’ 
the  following,  “two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concurring 
therein.”  This  amendment  was  adopted.  Again  on  the  16th,  it 
was  moved  by  Mr.  Mangum  to  amend  the  resolution  offered  by  the 
senate  committee  on  foreign  relations  by  striking  out  all  after  the 
word  “Resolved,”  and  to  insert  two  resolutions  as  follows: 

“(1)  That  the  Senate  advise  the  President  to  communicate  to  his  Majesty 
the  King  of  the  Netherlands  that  the  United  States  decline  to  ‘adopt’  the 
boundary  recommended  by  his  Majesty  as  being  ‘suitable’  between  the 
dominions  of  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States.” 

‘‘(2)  That  the  Senate  advise  the  President  to  open  a new  negotiation  with 
his  Britannic  Majesty’s  government  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  boundary 

^Congressional  Debates,  1831-1832,  VIII,  Part  I,  pp.  1399-1412. 


14 


210 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


between  the  possessions  of  the  United  States  and  those  of  the  King  of  Great 
Britain  on  the  northeastern  frontier.” 

A division  of  the  question  was  ordered  and  the  amendment  to 
strike  out  all  after  the  word  “Resolved,”  in  the  resolution  offered 
by  the  senate  committee  on  foreign  relations,  was  carried  by  a 
vote  of  35  to  8,  Mr.  Tazewell,  chairman  of  the  senate  committee, 
being  one  of  the  minority.  So  satisfactory  was  this  action,  appar- 
ently, that  the  Senate,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Holmes,  adjourned  with- 
out proceeding  to  the  question  then  recurring  on  inserting  the 
proposed  amendment. 

No  further  action  was  taken  until  June  21st.  Other  amend- 
ments were  then  proposed,  among  them  one  by  Mr.  Clayton,  add- 
ing at  the  end  of  the  first  resolution  the  words:  “Because,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Senate,  the  King  of  the  Netherlands  has  not 
decided  the  question  submitted  to  him,  touching  the  northern  and 
northeastern  boundary  of  the  United  States.”  This  amendment 
was  carried  by  a vote  of  24  to  14.  Other  proposed  amendments 
were  defeated.  One  of  these,  offered  by  Mr.  Webster,  showed 
that  the  Massachusetts  senator  was  in  agreement  with  Mr.  Clay 
in  reference  to  the  Senate’s  action.  His  amendment  was  as  fol- 
lows: “That  having  respectfully  considered  the  message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  of  December  7,  1831,  transmitting 
the  opinion  of  the  King  of  the  Netherlands  in  relation  to  the 
northeastern  boundary  of  the  United  States,  for  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate,  whether  it  will  advise  a submission  to  that  opinion, 
and  consent  to  its  execution,  the  Senate  is  not  of  opinion  that  this 
is  a case  in  which  the  Senate  is  called  on  to  express  any  opinion, 
or  give  any  advice  to  the  President.”  The  amendment  failed  of 
adoption  by  a vote  of  17  to  26.  The  question  of  inserting  the 
first  resolution  as  amended  was  then  decided  in  the  affirmative, 
yeas  21,  nays  20. 

On  June  23rd,  while  the  second  resolution  was  under  consider- 
ation, an  amendment  was  adopted,  proposed  by  Senator  Sprague, 
of  Maine,  adding  at  the  close  of  the  resolution  the  following 
words:  “according  to  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783.”  It  was  then 


THE  king’s  award  REJECTED. 


211 


voted  to  insert  the  amended  resolution  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Man- 
gum.  When  action  was  now  taken  upon  the  original  resolution 
as  amended,  a division  of  the  question  having  been  demanded, 
the  first  resolution  was  rejected  (14  yeas,  30  nays),  and  the  sec- 
ond adopted  (yeas  23,  nays  22),  the  action  of  the  Senate  being  in 
these  words: 

“Resolved,  That  the  Senate  advise  the  President  to  open  a new  negotiation 
with  his  Britannic  Majesty’s  government,  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  bound- 
ary between  the  possessions  of  the  United  States  and  those  of  the  King  of 
Great  Britain,  on  the  northeastern  frontier  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
the  treaty  of  peace,  of  1783.’’  ^ 

Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Clay  voted  against  both  of  the  resolutions. 
Evidently  the  failure  of  the  first  resolution  was  the  result  of  added 
reflection  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the  Senate.  As  it  was 
proposed  to  advise  the  president  to  open  a new  negotiation  with 
reference  to  the  northeastern  boundary,  there  was  no  need  of  tak- 
ing any  further  notice  of  the  award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands. 

Although  the  action  of  the  Senate  was  a victory  for  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  the  margin  of  success  was  very  slight. 
Nothing  further,  however,  was  to  be  feared  from  the  course  pur- 
sued by  the  arbitrator;  and  on  July  2nd  the  Maine  commissioners 
in  Washington  were  able  to  inform  Governor  Smith  that  already 
President  Jackson  had  made  known  to  them  his  purpose  to  pro- 
ceed (as  advised  by  the  Senate)  as  soon  as  the  present  state  of 

2 

the  boundary  question  and  existing  circumstances  would  admit. 

'^Congressional  Debates,  1831-1832,  VIII,  Part  I,  1394-1398. 

"^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  79-81. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Preparations  for  Negotiation. 


MPORTANT  conferences  between  the  commissioners  of 
the  State  of  Maine  in  Washington  and  those  appointed 
by  President  Jackson  followed  the  action  of  the  Senate  in 
rejecting  the  boundary  settlement  recommended  by  the 
king  of  the  Netherlands.  In  the  earlier  of  these  conferences  the 
Maine  commissioners  drew  up  a provisional  agreement  for  a settle- 
ment, which  they  submitted  to  their  associates.  On  July  25,  1832, 
the  latter  returned  an  executed  copy  of  this  agreement  with  only 
a slight  modification  made  necessary  by  the  action  of  the  Senate 
advising  a new  negotiation;  and  on  August  21st,  a counterpart 
agreement,  executed  by  the  Maine  commissioners,  was  forwarded 
to  the  administration  commissioners.^  This  was  the  action  to 
which  Mr.  Livingston,  as  secretary  of  state,  referred  July  21st,  in 
a letter  to  Mr.  Bankhead,  the  British  charge  d’affaires  in  Wash- 
ington, informing  him  of  an  arrangement  for  the  boundary  settle- 
ment then  in  progress  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of 
Maine,  by  which  the  government  of  the  United  States  would  be 
clothed  with  ampler  powers  than  it  had  heretofore  possessed.^ 

But  no  such  agreement  could  have  any  binding  effect  until  it 
should  be  ratified  and  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  of  Maine;  and 
the  provisional  agreement  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  com- 
missioners without  further  action  until  the  meeting  of  the  Maine 
Legislature.  In  fact,  the  report  of  the  commissioners  had  not 
reached  Governor  Smith  when  his  annual  message  was  delivered 
on  January  4,  1833.  It  must  have  been  in  his  hands  shortly  after, 
however,  for  the  letter  of  the  commissioners,  in  forwarding  their 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence , etc.,  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  87-90. 

“^Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  4. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


213 


report  and  the  agreement,  was  dated  Portland,  January  14,  1833.^ 
But  still  there  was  delay  in  communicating  this  information  to  the 
Legislature.  At  length,  near  the  close  of  the  session,  a joint 
request  was  sent  to  the  governor,  asking  him  to  communicate  to 
the  Legislature  the  report  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  him 
March  3,  1832,  with  such  other  documents  relating  to  the  north- 
eastern boundary  as  he  had  received  and  as  soon  as  he  could  do 
so  consistently  with  the  public  good.  To  this  the  governor  replied 
on  March  1,  1833.  He  had  received  the  request,  he  said,  but  he 
had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  publication  of  these  communi- 
cations at  that  time  “could  not  fail  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  success 
of  the  negotiation  instituted  by  the  president  with  Great  Britain, 
and  adverse  to  the  interests  of  both  the  State  of  Maine  and  of  the 
United  States;”  but  he  assured  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  and 
through  them  the  people  of  Maine,  that  no  definite  action  on  the 
part  of  the  state  in  relation  to  the  disputed  territory  could  or  would 
be  taken  until  the  whole  subject  had  received  the  consideration  of 
the  Legislature,  having  in  its  possession  the  documents  requested.^ 
At  length,  as  the  session  drew  to  a close,  the  governor  laid  both 
the  report  and  the  agreement  before  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. Evidently  the  pressure  was  so  great  that  the  governor 
deemed  it  wise  to  withhold  no  longer  such  information  with  refer- 
ence to  the  new  negotiation  as  was  in  his  possession.  The  report 
dealt  largely  with  the  history  of  the  boundary  matter.  After  this 
review,  and  having  asserted  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  state 
in  the  settlement  of  the  controversy,  the  commissioners  from 
Maine  proceeded:  “if,  then,  in  the  progress  of  the  contemplated 
negotiation  it  should  be  found  that  what  is  demanded  by  Maine  as 
her  right  is  now  utterly  unattainable,  and  if  the  State,  insisting 
upon  its  extreme  right,  denies  to  the  United  States  all  power  under 
any  circumstances  to  make  even  a beneficial  compromise,  it  is 
well  to  inquire  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  where  is  the  con- 

^ Manuscript  Correspondence^  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary , State  Library, 
III,  91-107. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  599,  600. 


214 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


troversy  and  the  well-known  state  of  things,  and  the  onward 
course  of  events  within  the  State,  to  lead  us?”  As  to  their  own 
views,  the  commissioners  state  in  closing  that  with  entire  confi- 
dence in  the  good  faith  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
in  its  several  branches  of  administration,  “we  have  been  induced 
after  the  most  mature  consideration  we  have  been  able  to  give  to 
the  subject,  to  accede  on  our  part  to  the  provisional  agreement,” 
and  they  now  submitted  it  “to  the  wisdom  of  the  Legislature.  ” ^ 

The  agreement,  as  thus  submitted,  showed  that  Maine  was  to 
surrender  provisionally  to  the  United  States  all  claim  to  jurisdic- 
tion and  right  of  soil  over  the  territory  lying  north  of  the  river 
St.  John  and  east  of  the  river  St.  Francis..  On  the  other  hand 
the  United  States  was  to  grant  to  the  State  of  Maine  an  indem- 
nity for  the  release  of  all  right  and  claim  to  the  above  mentioned 
territory,  the  indemnity  to  consist  of  one  million  acres  of  land 
to  be  selected  out  of  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States 
within  the  territory  of  Michigan,  such  land  to  be  surveyed  and 
sold  by  the  United  States  under  the  same  regulations  which  apply 
to  the  public  lands,  and  the  whole  proceeds  without  deduction 
were  to  be  paid  to  the  State  of  Maine.  If,  however,  in  the  result 
of  any  negotiation  with  Great  Britain,  the  State  of  Maine  ulti- 
mately should  lose  less  of  her  territory  than  she  would  according 
to  the  line  designated  by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  the  indem- 
nity was  to  be  proportionate  to  the  actual  loss.  Also,  if  any  new 
territory  contiguous  to  the  State  of  Maine,  but  not  then  within 
her  limits,  should  be  acquired  from  Great  Britain  by  such  nego- 
tiation, the  same  was  to  be  annexed  to  the  State  of  Maine  and 
there  was  to  be  a further  deduction  from  the  indemnity  mentioned. 

• In  case,  however,  these  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  president  to 
negotiate  should  wholly  fail,  and  the  proper  authority  of  the 
United  States  should  determine  to  acquiesce  in  the  line  designated 
by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  the  State  of  Maine  was  to  receive 
the  proceeds  of  the  promised  million  of  acres  without  any  abate- 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  91-98. 


^t/rr^ 


t/(^az^-£^^  'Ztzzi^Z'Z^  <^^yr/^z-'Z1■'  «//^^/^ z^zz^ 
zUTZf if lA^/^ /z^  '^t^zrtiz 


z, ^zzz^> 

^ ^14/  /^-2/  ^ii^<yOzJer> . 

iZ'9^^r7~  ZtZZ^  ZUZrl^/ZZyZt^ 

zz^zrfz^'^z^^^  ^zz  zi^  zr/'  -czz-t^l.^^  z^n^z 

/izt'Z^ z^  »^^zz/e^:^£^zZ'ZZZ/  zzAz^r.czrz%z  zzz/^-^ifzzi^r^ 

/ / i . / 

i^^iS>  ^yzz^  zzf  z$^9  zAzzf^ z^p  Z^O  cz^e/ z-zz/tZ> 


zr?^ 


z^  Z^O  J^zuzz^  z^  €f^Z>  z^  , ^ ^ z!^^ 

-^^Zlydz^nz:>  z^  ZZ^'Z^z^Z-^^z:^  Cztzt/Z^Cfi^ 


z^zi-zneO> 


(ZZyi^ 


The  Last  Page  of  the  Commissioxer’s  Report. 

Livingston,  McLane  and  Woodbury  were  members  of  President  Jackson’s  Cabinet. 
Preble,  Williams  and  Emery  were  Commissioners  from  the  State  of  Maine. 
From  the  original  in  the  State  Library  at  Augusta. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


215 


ment  or  deduction.  But  it  was  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
until  this  agreement  should  have  been  received  and  ratified  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Maine,  nothing  in  the  agreement 
should  be  construed  as  derogating  from  the  claim  and  pretensions 
of  Maine  to  the  whole  extent  of  her  territory  as  asserted  by  the 
Legislature;  nor  should  anything  in  the  agreement  be  so  construed 
as  to  express  or  imply,  on  the  part  of  the  president,  any  opinion 
whatever  as  to  the  validity  of  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the 
Netherlands,  or  of  the  obligation  or  expediency  of  carrying  the 
same  into  effect.^ 

This  agreement,  in  general  terms,  did  not  differ  from  thaf 
which  was  outlined  in  the  president’s  proposal  and  which  received 
the  sanction  of  the  preceding  Legislature.  The  people  of  Maine, 
however,  were  by  no  means  largely  of  the  samo  mind  as  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  who  gave  that  sanction.  The  remarks  of 
Mr.  Sprague  in  the  debate  in  the  United  States  Senate,  as  already 
mentioned,  indicated  very  different  convictions  on  the  part  of  the 
people  from  those  that  found  expression  on  the  part  of  the  major- 
ity in  the  debates  in  the  Maine  Legislature  preceding  the  action 
taken  March  3,  1832.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the 
Legislature  of  1833,  having  received  the  agreement  formulated  by 
the  commissioners  in  Washington,  proceeded  at  once  to  repeal  the 
action  taken  one  year  before,  and  to  indicate  a new  and  advanced 
position  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  the  boundary  controversy,  mak- 
ing the  validity  of  future  action  with  reference  to  a settlement  of 
the  boundary  controversy  to  rest  on  approval  by  the  people  of  the 
state  in  town  meeting,  and  by  a majority  of  their  votes.  This 
action  was  approved  March  4,  1833,  and  was  as  follows; 

“Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  Resolve  passed  the  third  of  March  in  the 
year  of  our  I/ord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  entitled  a 
‘Resolve  respecting  the  territory  lying  north  and  east  of  the  Rivers  St.  John 
and  St.  Francis,’  as  provides  for  the  submission  to  the  legislature  ‘for 
approval  or  rejection,’  of  the  agreement  or  treaty  therein  contemplated  to  be 
made  by  the  commissioners  therein  mentioned,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
repealed. 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc.,  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Ribrary, 
III,  99-107. 


216 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


“Resolved,  That  no  arrangement,  provisional  agreement,  or  treaty  already 
made,  or  in  pursuance  of  the  Resolve  to  which  this  is  additional,  shall  have 
any  binding  force,  effect  or  operation,  until  the  same  shall  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  of  this  State,  in  their  primary  assemblies,  and  approved 
by  a majority  of  their  votes.’’ 

This  was  a death  blow  to  the  proposal  outlined  in  the  agree- 
ment. Hitherto,  Maine’s  attitude  had  been  regarded  by  the 
national  government  and  the  government  of  Great  Britain  as  an 
obstacle  to  success  in  boundary  negotiations  because  of  the  state’s 
demand  that  no  agreement  or  treaty  could  have  any  effect  unless 
it  had  received  the  approval  of  the  Legislature.  Here  was  a 
demand  that  required  the  approval  of  the  people  of  Maine, 
expressed  in  their  primary  assemblies  and  by  a majority  of  the 
voters.  Naturally,  such  a demand  had  a depressing  effect  in 
Washington. 

In  the  spring  of  1833,  Sir  Charles  Vaughan,  the  British  minis- 
ter to  the  United  States,  returned  to  his  duties  in  Washington 
after  an  extended  absence.  In  an  early  inquiry  addressed  to  Mr. 
Livingston,  secretary  of  state,  he  asked  what  arrangement  had 
been  made  between  the  general  government  of  the  United  States 
and  the  State  of  Maine  for  avoiding  the  difl&culty  in  boundary 
affairs  which  the  secretary  of  state  had  mentioned,  July  21,  1832, 
in  his  note  to  Mr.  Bankhead.®  To  this  inquiry,  Mr.  Livingston, 
April  30,  1833,  could  only  say  that  the  anticipations  with  refer- 
ence to  the  arrangement  mentioned  had  not  been  realized,  and 
that  in  the  present  state  of  the  question  the  government  could 
renew  negotiation  only  on  the  basis  of  the  establishment  of  the 
boundary  presented  in  the  treaty  of  1783.® 

In  this  note,  however,  Mr.  Livingston  suggested  that  a strict 
construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  its  description  of  the  bound- 
ary, might  be  overcome.  “Thus,”  he  said,  “if  after  more  accu- 
rate surveys  shall  have  been  made,  it  should  be  found  that  the 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  580,  581. 

‘^Document  No.  4H,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  5-7. 

®No  mention  of  Maine’s  new  attitude  was  made  in  the  letter.  The  presi- 
dent’s proposal  had  gone  to  the  scrap  heap. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


217 


north  course  from  the  head  of  the  St.  Croix  should  not  reach  the 
highlands,  which  answer  the  description  of  those  designated  in 
the  treaty  of  1783,  then  a direct  line  from  the  head  of  the  St. 
Croix,  whatever  may  be  its  direction  to  such  highlands,  ought  to 
be  adopted,  and  the  line  would  still  be  conformable  to  the  treaty.  ’ ’ ^ 

In  his  reply.  May  11th,  admitting  that  he  did  not  “sufficiently 
comprehend  Mr.  Livingston’s  partially  developed  suggestion,  Mr. 
Vaughan  remarked  that  if  the  principle  should  be  accepted,”  a 
deviation  from  the  direct  north  line  laid  down  in  the  treaty  might 
lead  to  an  oblique  line  being  drawn  to  mountains  to  the  eastward 
of  it,  which  “would  trench  upon  his  Majesty’s  territory  of  New 
Brunswick.”*  Mr.  Livingston,  in  his  reply  May  28th,  amplified 
his  suggestion;  but  Mr.  Vaughan,  in  sending  his  letter  to  Lord 
Palmerston,  did  not  forget  to  remind  him  of  the  old  obstacle, — the 
attitude  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  denying  the  power  of  Congress 
to  dispose  of  any  part  of  the  disputed  territory  by  an  arrangement 
with  Great  Britain, — “and  thus  the  proposed  alternative  in  the 
mode  of  seeking  the  termination  of  the  boundary  according  to 
the  treaty  is  the  only  concession  we  can  expect  at  present  from 
the  general  government.”  * 

About  this  time,  Mr.  Livingston  retired  from  the  department 
of  state,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Louis  McLane,  already  men- 
tioned as  one  of  the  boundary  commissioners  in  the  preceding 
year.  Evidently,  the  British  government,  in  the  suggestion  made 
by  Mr.  Livingston,  was  encouraged  to  hope  for  a more  favorable 
settlement  of  the  controversy  than  it  had  been  led  to  expect  from 
the  rejection  of  the  award  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands;  and 
Mr.  Vaughan,  May  31,  1833,  in  a note  to  Mr.  McLane,  asked  for 
further  information  with  reference  to  that  suggestion.  If  a 
special  commission  should  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  finding 
“highlands”  westward  of  the  due  north  line  which  alone  had 
hitherto  been  explored,  what  limitations  was  it  intended  to  put 

^Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  9. 

^Ib.,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  12. 

^British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  XXII,  811. 


218 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


upon  the  course  to  be  followed.  Mr.  Livingston’s  diagram  did 
not  explain  whether  the  attention  of  the  commissioners  was  to  be 
directed  to  any  particular  spot,  or  whether  they  were  to  be  left  at 
liberty  to  stop  at  the  first  “highlands,”  answering  the  required 
description,  which  they  might  meet  after  leaving  the  monument.^ 
In  his  answer  of  June  5,  1833,  Mr.  McLane  called  the  attention 
of  the  British  minister  to  the  unalterable  attitude  of  the  State  of 
Maine.  The  territory  of  Maine,  he  said,  is  supposed  to  compre- 
hend all  the  land  which  would  be  thrown  within  her  limits,  by 
establishing  the  true  line  of  the  treaty  of  1783;  and  as  any  con- 
ventional line,  south  of  the  true  line  of  the  treaty,  would  deprive 
her  of  so  much  of  her  territory,  it  could  not  be  adopted,  unless  on 
grounds  of  greater  public  necessity  than  at  present  exist,  without 
the  consent  of  that  state.  It  was  not  probable,  he  said,  that  such 
consent  would  be  given,  nor  would  the  president  be  authorized, 
after  the  recent  proceedings  in  the  Senate,  to  venture  to  agree 
upon  a conventional  line,  without  such  consent.^ 

The  British  minister  found  little  encouragement  in  McLane’s 
reply  because  of  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  the  president  by 
“the  pretensions  of  the  State  of  Maine,  which  lays  claim  to  the 
whole  of  the  disputed  territory;”  and  he  added:  “To  admit  the 
pretensions  of  Maine  would  be  to  allow  the  defects  of  the  treaty 
to  be  construed  entirely  to  the  advantage  of  the  United  States; 
and  Mr.  Vaughan  closed  his  letter  with  diplomatic  courtesy  in 
the  words,  “The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  renew  to  Mr. 
McUane  the  assurance  of  his  most  distinguished  consideration.”  * 
At  length  (July  4,  1833),  it  being  for  the  interest  of  Great 
Britain  to  obtain  or  secure  an  uninterrupted  communication  by 
the  usual  and  accustomed  road  between  Halifax  and  Quebec,  Mr. 
Vaughan  proposed  to  Lord  Palmerston  a line  “following  the  due 
north  line  already  explored  and  fixed  from  the  monument  at  the 
source  of  the  St.  Croix  river  to  the  point  where  it  strikes  the  St. 

'^Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  14-16. 

^Ib.,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  17,  18. 

^ Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  19,  20. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


219 


John,  and  thence  let  it  be  continued  along-  the  right  bank  of  that 
river  west-ward  to  its  sources,  and  afterwards,  by  the  most  direct 
line  to  the  sources  of  the  Connecticut.”  ^ Instead  of  taking  any 
notice  of  this  suggestion.  Lord  Palmerston,  December  21,  1833, 
sent  a long  communication  to  Mr.  Vaughan,  in  which  he  recurred 
to  the  main  points  in  the  decision  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands. 
Then,  referring  to  a difficulty  which  he  said  had  prevented  the 
United  States  from  acquiescing  in  the  king’s  recommendation, 
viz.,  it  not  being  the  boundary  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  he  found  a 
difficulty  equally  fatal  in  Mr.  Livingston’s  suggestion,  which  was 
not  according  to  the  treaty  of  1783.^ 

This  certainly  was  a hea-yy  blow  at  a suggestion  which  was 
designed  to  get  rid  of  the  “difficulty  started  by  Maine.”  But 
March  11,  1834,  replying  to  a note  from  Mr.  Vaughan  communi- 
cating the  views  of  the  British  government  in  reference  to  the 
boundary,  Mr.  McLane  again  reminded  the  British  minister  that 
the  resolution  of  the  Senate,  pursuant  to  which  negotiation  had 
been  resumed,  proposed  to  ascertain  the  boundary  according  to 
the  treaty  of  1783;  “and  for  this  purpose,”  he  added,  “by  what- 
ever means  it  may  be  ascertained,  the  authority  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  is  complete,  without  the  co-operation 
of  the  State  of  Maine;”  and  he  amplified  the  statement  made  by 
Mr.  Livingston  in  his  note  of  April  30,  1833,  that  in  all  questions 
of  boundary  of  tracts  and  countries  designated  by  natural  objects, 
the  plain  and  universal  rule  of  surveying  is  first  to  find  the  nat- 
ural object,  and  then  reach  it  by  the  nearest  direct  course.^  But 
he  did  not  remind  the  British  minister  that  Maine  still  had  very 
definite  and  decided  opinions  with  reference  to  that  ‘ ‘due  north’  ’ 
line  and  “highlands”  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 

However,  if  it  should  be  found  impracticable  to  trace  the  bound- 
ary according  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  Mr.  McLane  thought  it  might 
then  be  found  desirable  to  enter  upon  a negotiation  for  the  adop- 

'^British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  XXII,  823,  824. 

Ub.,  XXII,  830. 

^Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  29,  30. 


220 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


tion  of  a conventional  line  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  But  here, 
at  once,  the  shadow  of  the  State  of  Maine  fell  upon  the  secretary 
of  state,  and  he  added  the  discouraging  words:  “This  mode, 
however,  could  only  be  adopted  with  the  special  assent  of  the 
State  of  Maine,”  and  such  assent  was  too  remote  to  justify  any 
attempt  to  procure  it.^ 

The  secretary  of  state  in  Washington  may  have  had  in  mind 
the  words  of  Governor  Dunlap  “ shortly  before  in  his  message  to 
the  Legislature  of  Maine,  January  2,  1834.  After  a reference 
to  the  rejection  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  of  the  decision 
made  by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  he  said:  “l  cannot  but 
consider  the  way  as  now  open  for  the  ultimate  attainment  of  our 
rights.  The  determination  of  the  present  national  administra- 
tion ‘to  submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong’  ® in  its  negotiations  with 
foreign  powers,  furnishes  a guaranty  that  the  territorial  and 
jurisdictional  rights  of  Maine  will  not  again  be  put  in  jeopardy 
by  any  arrangement  to  which  this  state  is  not  a party,  or  to  which 
its  assent  shall  not  first  be  obtained.  What  considerations  may 
grow  out  of  the  negotiation  now  pending  to  induce  the  people  of 
this  state  to  assent  to  any  proposed  modification  of  their  rights, 
I will  not  presume  to  anticipate.  If  any  should  arise  in  connec- 
tion with  a proposition  of  that  character,  our  obligations  as  pub- 
lic servants,  acting  under  a constitution  which  gives  to  us  but 
limited  powers,  point  directly  to  the  people  themselves,  both  for 
instruction  and  for  the  measure  of  authority  that  will  be  essential 
to  a proper  action  upon  the  subject.”* 

1 Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  31. 

2 Governor  Dunlap  was  born  in  Brunswick,  Maine,  August  17,  1794.  Grad- 
uating at  Bowdoin  College  in  1815,  he  studied  law  and  entered  upon  the  prac- 
tice of  his  profession  in  his  native  town.  He  was  elected  a state  senator  in 
1827,  and  presided  over  that  body.  In  1833  he  was  elected  governor,  and 
held  that  office  four  years.  In  1843  he  was  elected  a member  of  Congress, 
and  served  two  terms. 

^Jackson’s  second  inaugural  address,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presi- 
dents, III,  3. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  II,  605,  606. 


Robert  P.  Duneap, 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


221 


In  a note  to  the  British  minister,  March  21,  1834,  Mr.  McLane 
extended  an  invitation  to  the  British  government  to  unite  with 
the  president  in  a renewed  effort  to  determine  the  line  of  the 
treaty  of  1783.^  This  invitation  was  communicated  to  Lord 
Palmerston,  who  in  his  reply,  October  30,  1834,  addressed  him- 
self not  only  to  the  proposition  of  the  president  contained  in  Mr. 
McLane’s  note,  but  in  the  previous  communications  of  Mr.  L,iv- 
ingston  of  the  30th  of  April  and  28th  of  May,  1833,  namely,  the 
proposition  that  new  commissioners  should  be  appointed,  who 
should  be  empowered  to  seek,  westward  of  the  meridian  of  the 
source  of  the  St.  Croix,  highlands  answering  to  the  description  of 
those  which  are  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  1783.”“  The  sub- 
stance of  Lord  Palmerston’s  note  was  communicated  December 
8,  1834,  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  the  new  secretary  of  state  for  the  United 
States;  but  notwithstanding  a continuance  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  two  governments  during  the  years  1835  and  1836, 
the  attitude  of  the  State  of  Maine,  objecting  to  any  other  line 
than  that  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  sufficient  to  set  aside  the 
various  suggestions  which  from  time  to  time  found  expression  in 
these  communications.® 

In  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature  of  Maine  early  in  Jan- 
uary, 1837,  Governor  Dunlap  was  obliged  to  say  as  in  1835  and  1836 
that  the  boundary  question  remained  unsettled,  and  that  he  had 
received  no  information  that  would  warrant  the  expectation  of  a 
speedy  adjustment.  What  this  meant  to  the  State  of  Maine  was 
plainly  stated,  and  he  closed  the  statement  with  these  words: 
“in  this  state  of  things,  is  it  not  due  to  our  self  respect,  as  well  as 
to  the  cause  of  justice,  that  the  State  of  Maine  should  insist  on 
being  immediately  placed  by  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
into  the  possession  of  the  invaluable  rights,  from  which  she  has 
been  so  long  excluded.”  * 

^ Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  39,  40. 

‘^British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  XXII,  858. 

^Document  No.  414,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  42-64. 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  143,  144. 


222 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


One  of  the  suggestions  in  the  correspondence  between  the  two 
governments  had  been  that  of  a new  survey.  Early  in  the  session 
of  the  Legislature,  a joint  committee  was  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  providing  by  law  for  the  appointment  by 
the  state  of  commissioners,  with  the  consent  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  to  survey  the  line  between  Maine  and  New 
Brunswick  according  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  establish  mon- 
uments in  such  places  as  should  be  fixed  by  such  commissioners 
and  by  commissioners  appointed  by  Great  Britain.  The  commit- 
tee presented  its  report  on  February  2,  1837.  Referring  at  con- 
siderable length  to  proceedings  that  followed  the  rejection  of  the 
recommendation  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  and  giving  some 
attention  to  British  attempts  to  run  the  boundary  line,  the  com- 
mittee insisted  that  the  time  had  come  to  begin  a search  for  the 
line  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  begin  it  in  the  right  places.  Our 
first  object,  it  was  urged,  should  be  to  ascertain  and  trace  the 
north  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia,  which  is  the  south  boundary  of 
the  Province  of  Quebec,  and  see  if  Canada  comes  down  as  far  as 
Mars  Hill.  And  we  should  proceed  to  finish  the  search,  taking 
the  elevations  on  the  due  north  line  to  some  point  where  the 
waters  divide.  The  general  government  immediately  should  be 
called  on  to  execute  the  work,  with  the  co-operation  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  Maine.  Notice  should  be  given  to  the  British 
authorities  to  unite  in  the  undertaking;  and,  if  they  refuse,  our 
government  ought  to  proceed  ex  parte.  Accordingly,  March  25, 
1837,  resolutions  authorizing  and  requesting  the  governor  to  call 
on  the  president  to  cause  such  a survey,  and  the  erection  of  mon- 
uments marking  the  line,  were  adopted.^  Governor  Dunlap  made 
such  a request  of  the  national  government  in  a letter  to  President 
Van  Buren  April  30th. 

Among  the  people  of  New  Brunswick  the  most  active  in  politi- 
cal and  international  matters  were  the  Loyalists  at  St.  Andrews, 
who,  in  their  continued  devotion  to  the  crown,  were  at  all  times 
alert  in  any  line  of  endeavor  that  gave  promise  of  an  enlargement 
of  provincial  interests,  especially  civil  and  commercial.  As  early 
"^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  173-185. 


preparations  for  negotiation. 


223 


as  1835,  they  formed  an  association  for  bringing  into  public  notice 
the  practicability  of  constructing  a railway  between  St.  Andrews 
and  Quebec.  The  project  received  the  sanction  and  patronage  of 
the  governor-in-chief  of  British  North  America,  the  lieutenant 
governors  of  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia  and  the  Legisla- 
tures of  Lower  Canada  and  New  Brunswick.  Surveyors  were 
employed  for  the  exploration  of  a desirable  route,  legislative 
action  was  taken,  boards  of  trade  were  addressed  in  the  interest 
of  the  scheme,  and  petitions  were  signed  and  forwarded  to  the 
king  of  Great  Britain,  soliciting  the  construction  of  a railway 
between  the  places  named,  or  the  extension  of  royal  aid  and  pro- 
tection to  the  petitioners  in  the  proposed  undertaking.  This 
matter  having  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  government  at 
Washington,  Mr.  Forsyth,  by  request  of  the  president,  wrote  to 
the  British  minister,  March  23,  1837,  characterizing  this  new  step 
on  the  part  of  his  Majesty’s  provincial  authorities  and  subjects  as 
a most  exceptionable  departure  from  the  principle  to  abstain  from 
any  extension  of  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  within  the  disputed 
territory  while  the  differences  between  the  two  countries  remained 
unsettled;  and  he  informed  the  British  minister  that  he  was 
instructed  by  the  president  to  state  that  the  prosecution  of  such 
an  enterprise  would  be  regarded  by  the  government  as  a deliberate 
infringement  of  the  rights  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory  in 
question.^ 

With  reference  to  this  protest  the  British  government  received 
early  information;  and  in  June,  1837,  word  went  forth  from 
Downing  Street,  London,  that  his  Majesty’s  ministers  acknowl- 
edged the  force  of  the  protest,  and,  much  as  they  regretted  any 
obstacle  to  an  undertaking  which  promised  such  advantageous 
results,  they  refused  to  sanction  any  farther  progress  in  it  in 
opposition  to  the  express  remonstrance  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States.* 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  367,  368. 

“^British  State  Papers,  XXV,  941,  942.  A copy  of  the  letter  of  the  British 
minister  in  Washington  to  Secretary  Forsyth  is  in  Manuscript  Correspond- 
ence, etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library,  III,  203. 


224 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Such  prompt  action  by  the  British  government,  with  instruc- 
tions to  its  officers  on  this  side  of  the  sea  to  take  the  most  effectual 
measures  to  prevent  any  infringement  of  jurisdictional  rights, 
made  a very  favorable  impression  at  Washington.  But  the  activ- 
ity of  New  Brunswick  officials  in  other  directions  dispelled  any 
thought  of  improved  conditions  near  the  boundary.  During  the 
session  of  the  Maine  Legislature  an  act  was  passed  making  it  the 
duty  of  the  commissioners  of  Penobscot  County  to  take  a census 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  county  residing  north  of  the  surveyed 
and  located  townships.  Mr.  Ebenezer  S.  Greely,  of  Dover,  duly 
commissioned  for  this  service,  proceeded  to  Madawaska,  and  on 
May  29th,  while  thus  employed,  was  arrested  by  New  Brunswick 
oflScials  and  conveyed  to  Woodstock,  in  Carleton  County.  The 
sheriff  there  refused  to  commit  him  to  jail,  and  he  returned  to  his 
duties.  June  6,  1837,  he  was  again  arrested.  This  time  he  was 
taken  to  Fredericton  and  imprisoned.  Governor  Dunlap,  informed 
of  Mr.  Greely’s  arrest  and  imprisonment,  brought  his  case  to  the 
attention  of  President  Van  Buren  ^ and  asked  for  the  adoption  of 
prompt  measures  for  Mr.  Greely’s  release.  These  were  success- 
ful, and  on  August  25th,  the  secretary  of  state  was  able  to  inform 
the  governor  that  the  prisoner  had  been  discharged. 

Soon  after  reaching  his  home  Mr.  Greely  received  instructions 
from  the  commissioners  of  Penobscot  County  to  return  to  Mada- 
waska and  complete  his  census  work.  He  soon  made  his  way 
thither,  where  he  met  the  warden  of  the  forest  lands  on  the  dis- 
puted country  and  the  solicitor  general  of  the  Province  of  New 
Brunswick,  who  had  received  information  of  his  return.  By  them 
he  was  questioned  as  to  his  purpose  in  again  appearing  in  Mada- 
waska. He  answered  their  questions  by  avowing  his  purpose, 
under  official  orders,  to  complete  a census  of  Madawaska.  Evi- 
dently the  conversation  was  under  some  excitement,  for  Mr. 
Greely,  as  he  later  informed  Governor  Dunlap,  told  his  ques- 
tioners that  Maine  was  “determined  to  take  that  census  if  it  took 

^Mr.  Van  Buren  succeeded  President  Jackson  March  4,  1837. 

“^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  358-367. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


225 


every  military  man  in  the  State;”  and  he  added,  that  he  was 
there  unarmed  and  alone  as  before,  and  without  fear  of  their 
“prisons,”  their  “balls”  and  their  “gibbets.”  Mr.  Greely  went 
about  his  work  as  directed,  but  after  visiting  several  houses,  he 
was  re-arrested  and  again  taken  to  the  jail  in  Fredericton.  From 
that  place,  on  September  11th,  Mr.  Greely  sent  an  extended 
account  of  these  occurrences  to  Governor  Dunlap,  followed  by 
other  letters;^  and  September  18th,  in  a letter,  the  governor  again 
carried  the  case  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  asking  that 
prompt  measures  should  at  once  be  taken  to  secure  Mr.  Greely’ s 
release.  The  secretary  of  state  made  a favorable  response  to  this 
request,  but  evidently,  from  the  secretary’s  letter,  the  informa- 
tion that  Mr.  Greely  had  returned  to  Madawaska  was  unwelcome 
to  the  president;  and  Mr.  Forsyth,  in  his  reply,  reminded  Gov- 
ernor Dunlap  of  the  president’s  desire,  previously  expressed,  that 
the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  within  the  disputed  territory  should 
be  held  in  abeyance,  and  especially  at  a time  when  the  president 
was  expecting  an  answer  daily  to  his  last  proposition  for  an  ami- 
cable settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy.^ 

But  if  the  president  had  his  regrets,  the  people  of  Maine  had 
theirs,  especially  as  the  close  of  the  year  found  a citizen  of  Maine 
in  a foreign  prison  for  service  under  an  order  of  the  commission- 
ers of  Penobscot  County. 

Edward  Kent,^  who  had  been  prominent  in  recent  legislative 
boundary  matters,  was  now  governor  of  Maine.  In  his  message 
to  the  Legislature,  January  22,  1838,  he  used  plain,  forcible  words 

'^Manuscript  Corresponde7ice , etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  223-241. 

Mb.,  State  Library,  III,  243-246. 

® His  election  was  the  result  of  a well-remembered  political  overturn  in  the 
state.  Governor  Kent  was  born  in  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  January  8, 
1802,  and  graduated  at  Harvard  College  in  1821.  In  1825  he  made  his  resi- 
dence in  Bangor,  where  he  became  a prominent  lawyer.  Few  men  in  the 
state,  and  none  out  of  it,  said  Governor  Washburn,  understood  the  boundary 
question  as  well  as  Governor  Kent.  In  1859  he  was  appointed  a justice  of 
the  supreme  court  of  Maine. 


15 


226 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


in  referring  to  the  relation  of  Maine  to  the  national  government. 
No  state,  he  said,  is  to  be  left  to  defend  its  soil  and  maintain  its 
just  rights  single-handed  and  alone.  Especially  was  this  the  case 
of  Maine,  a frontier  state,  bordering  on  foreign  territory,  and 
denied  the  power  to  negotiate  with  foreign  governments,  or  to 
declare  and  carry  on  war  in  her  own  defense.  It  was  her  duty, 
therefore,  to  call,  and  in  a strong  voice,  upon  that  government  to 
which  had  been  delegated  high  powers  for  her  protection  in  the 
exercise  of  her  jurisdictional  rights. 

Here  Governor  Kent  referred  to  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of 
Mr.  Greely.  The  letters  sent  by  Mr.  Greely  to  Governor  Dunlap 
seem  not  to  have  been  placed  in  his  hands,  and  he  said  the  facts 
connected  with  the  arrest  were  unknown  to  him;  but  if  it  was 
true  that  Mr.  Greely  was  arrested  “for  exercising  power  delegated 
to  him  under  a law  of  this  State the  dignity  and  sover- 

eignty of  the  State  and  nation  demand  his  instant  release.”  It 
was  not  enough,  he  added,  to  say  that  the  two  governments  con- 
cerned had  agreed  to  permit  the  actual  jurisdiction  to  remain  as  it 
existed  before,  pending  an  expected  negotiation.  He  had  seen 
no  evidence  that  such  an  agreement  was  ever  formally  entered 
into  by  the  parties.  Certainly  Maine  was  not  a party  to  it.  “if 
this  jurisdiction  is  to  be  tolerated  and  acquiesced  in  indefinitely, 
we  can  easily  see  why  negotiation  lags,  and  two  years  elapse 
between  a proposition  and  a reply.  They  have  all  they  want,  and 
the  jurisdiction  is  claimed  by  them  so  absolutely  that  we  cannot 
send  an  agent  to  number  the  people,  and  must  hesitate,  before  the 
disputed  line  can  be  run  to  fix  our  limits  and  ascertain  important 
facts.  The  first  duty  of  Maine,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  claim  the 
immediate  action  of  the  general  government,  to  move  efficiently 
and  decidedly,  to  bring  the  controversy  to  a conclusion.”  ' 

Early  in  the  year  1838,  the  British  government,  through  its 
minister  in  Washington,^  expressed  to  the  United  States  govern- 
ment a desire  to  make  a renewed  attempt  for  the  settlement  of  the 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  262-265. 

‘^Docume^it  No.  319,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  2. 


Edward  Kent 


preparations  for  negotiation. 


227 


boundary  controversy;  and  suggested  the  appointment  of  a com- 
mission to  explore  the  disputed  territory  in  order  to  find,  within 
its  limits,  dividing  highlands  that  would  answer  to  the  description 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  State  of  Maine  being  made  an  assenting 
party  to  such  an  arrangement.  If  such  exploration  should  show 
no  reasonable  prospect  of  finding  a line  strictly  conformable  with 
the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  added,  the  constitu- 
tional difiiculties  preventing  the  United  States  from  agreeing  to  a 
conventional  line  might  possibly  be  removed,  and  the  way  opened 
for  an  equitable  division  of  the  disputed  territory.  In  a lengthy 
communication,  presenting  an  historical  outline  of  settlement 
endeavors  between  the  two  governments  from  1783,  Mr.  Forsyth, 
the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  laid  before  Governor  Kent, 
of  Maine,  by  direction  of  the  president,  a statement  of  the  above 
proposal  of  the  British  government  in  order  to  ascertain  the  views 
of  the  State  of  Maine  as  to  the  expediency  of  attempting  to  estab- 
lish a conventional  line  of  boundary  between  that  state  and  the 
British  possessions  by  direct  negotiations  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States;  and  whether  the  State  of  Maine  would 
agree  (and  upon  what  conditions  if  she  elects  to  prescribe  any)  to 
abide  by  such  a settlement,  if  the  same  should  be  made.^ 

This  communication  the  governor  sent  to  the  Legislature  March 
14,  1838.  It  seemed  to  him  inexpedient,  he  said,  for  the  state  to 
acquiesce  in  the  proposed  negotiations  for  a conventional  line 
until  it  should  be  demonstrated  that  the  treaty  line  was  entirely 
impracticable.  As  to  the  intimation,  that  if  the  consent  of  Maine 
to  direct  negotiations  with  reference  to  a conventional  line  could 
not  be  obtained,  the  president  would  regard  it  his  duty  to  propose 
to  the  British  government  a reference  of  the  matter  to  a third 
party,  the  governor  withheld  any  comment,  but  asked  its  consid- 
eration by  the  Legislature.^  Such  consideration  it  received,  and 
the  following  resolutions,  adopted  by  that  body,  were  approved 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
III,  323-383. 

‘‘■Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  387-393. 


228 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


by  the  governor  March  23,  1838.  In  these  plain,  strong  words, 
Maine  again  made  her  appeal  directly  to  the  president  and  con- 
gress of  the  United  States. 

“Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient  to  give  the  assent  of  this  State  to  the 
Federal  Government  to  treat  with  that  of  Great  Britain  for  a conventional 
line  for  our  northeastern  boundary,  but  that  this  State  will  insist  on  the  line 
established  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

“Resolved,  That  as  this  State  has  never  heretofore  given  her  consent  to 
the  appointment  of  an  umpire  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  in  1814,  but  has  pro- 
tested against  the  same,  and  as  she  believes  it  to  be  a grave  question,  whether 
the  provision  of  the  treaty  for  this  purpose  has  not  done  its  office  and  is 
therefore  no  longer  in  force,  she  is  not  now  prepared  to  give  her  assent  to 
the  appointment  of  a new  Arbiter. 

“Resolved,  That  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  be  re- 
quested to  urge  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  survey  of  the  northeastern 
boundary  of  the  United  States,  &c.,  now  pending,  and  if  said  bill  shall  not 
become  a law  during  the  present  session  of  Congress,  and  if  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  Great  Britain  or  the 
State  of  Maine,  shall  not  on  or  before  the  6rst  day  of  September  next,  estab- 
lish and  appoint  a commission  for  a survey  of  said  boundary  line,  it  shall 
then  be  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Governor,  without  further  delay,  to 
appoint  forthwith  suitable  Commissioners  and  Surveyors  for  ascertaining, 
running  and  locating  the  northeastern  boundary  line  of  this  State,  and  to 
cause  the  same  to  be  carried  into  operation.”  ^ 

Writing  at  Fredericton,  New  Brunswick,  February  9,  1838, 
Mr.  Greely  informed  Governor  Kent  that  he  had  just  been 
released  from  the  jail  in  that  place,  and  inclosed  a copy  of  the 
order  for  his  release,  dated  February  2nd.^  As  the  order  directed 
that  the  prisoner  should  be  discharged  forthwith,  a week’s  delay 
seems  to  have  been  unnecessary.  Mr.  Greely  soon  made  his  way 
to  Augusta.  A legislative  resolve,  approved  by  the  governor 
March  12th,  appropriated  five  hundred  dollars  to  Mr.  Greely  in 
recognition  of  his  sufferings  and  losses.®  By  a subsequent  resolve 
a few  days  later,  the  sum  of  six  hundred  and  seventy-five  dollars 
was  allowed  and  paid  to  John  Baker  and  others  for  sufferings  and 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  343,  344. 

“^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary , State  Uibrary, 
III,  263-268. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  287. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  NEGOTIATION. 


229 


losses  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  the  town  of  Mada- 
waska  in  1831.^  In  both  cases,  the  governor  was  requested  to 
ask  reimbursement  from  the  government  of  the  United  States  for 
the  money  paid  by  the  state.  Such  reimbursement,  the  governor 
wrote  to  the  president,  would  be  a declaration  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  that  a strong  arm  would  be  outstretched  for  Maine’s 
protection  in  every  lawful  effort  to  maintain  just  claims. 

A strong  desire,  also,  was  expressed  that  some  immediate 
action  should  be  taken  by  Congress  for  the  erection  of  military 
posts  and  fortifications  in  eastern  Maine.  A communication  from 
the  adjutant  general  of  the  state  with  reference  to  the  lack  of  such 
defenses  was  forwarded  by  the  governor  to  the  secretary  of  war 
April  5,  1838;  and  in  accordance  with  the  governor’s  request 
Brigadier  General  John  E.  Wool  was  sent  to  Maine  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  a plan  of  defense.^  This  duty  he  performed. 

It  was  also  decided  to  send  a special  agent  to  Washington  to 
co-operate  with  the  Maine  delegation  in  Congress^  in  urging 
Maine’s  boundary  claims;  and  Charles  S.  Daveis,  of  Portland, 
who  had  already  served  the  state  in  a mission  to  New  Brunswick, 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  III,  291.  Of  this  amount  $350.00  was  paid  to  John 
Baker,  |125.00  to  Walter  Powers  and  $50.00  each  to  Nathaniel  Bartlett, 
Augustine  Webster,  Isaac  Yearington  and  John  Harford,  Jr. 

^Having  completed  this  service.  General  Wool  recommended  the  estab- 
lishment of  a post  in  the  vicinity  of  Moose  River  on  the  Canada  road,  four- 
teen miles  from  the  Canada  line,  with  an  advanced  post  on  the  height  of  land 
which  divides  Canada  from  Maine;  also  a depot  and  concentration  camp  for 
the  militia  on  the  upper  Kennebec  and  another  depot  at  the  foot  of  Moose- 
head  Bake.  The  force  at  Houlton  should  be  increased  to  five  companies  of 
infantry  and  one  of  artillery.  At  Calais  he  would  place  eight  companies  of 
infantry  and  two  of  artillery;  at  Eastport,  two  of  infantry  and  one  of  artil- 
lery. At  Bangor  or  vicinity,  he  would  establish  an  arsenal,  and  fortifications 
at  the  entrance  of  the  Penobscot  and  Kennebec  rivers.  Governor  Kent 
informed  General  Wool  that  in  twenty  days  he  could  muster  at  the  Forks  of 
the  Kennebec  12,000  militia,  at  Mattawamkeag  10,000  and  at  Calais  8,000. 
The  enrolled  militia  in  the  state  was  41,000. 

’The  delegation  at  that  time  was  as  follows:  John  Ruggles,  Reuel  Wil- 
liams, senators;  John  Fairfield,  F.  O.  J.  Smith,  George  Evans,  Thomas 
Davee,  H.  J.  Anderson,  J.  C.  Noyes  and  Edward  Robinson,  representatives. 


230 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


received  the  appointment.  In  his  instructions  he  was  directed  to 
urge  the  necessity  of  immediate  attention  on  the  part  of  Congress 
to  the  establishment  of  fortifications  and  military  posts  in  the 
boundary  territory,  and  especially  to  enforce  the  necessity  of 
effective  measures  for  running  the  boundary  line  expressed  in 
the  bill  then  before  Congress  and  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  In  a 
letter  to  the  members  of  the  delegation,  Governor  Kent  wrote: 
“No  departure  from  the  treaty  line  is  the  emphatic  note  of  Maine 

and  so  far  as  rests  upon  me,  her  will  and  wishes,  as 

expressed  by  the  Legislature,  shall  be  of  binding  force  and  faith- 
fully executed.  But  I cannot  but  feel  that  if  we  are  driven  to 
assume  this  responsibility,  and  to  go  forward  unaided  and  unsup- 
ported, the  general  government  will  be  fully  chargeable  with  neg- 
lect of  a constitutional  duty  and  an  abandonment,  in  the  moment 
of  peril,  of  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union  whose  claims  have 
already  been  too  long  postponed  and  too  lightly  regarded.”  ^ 

"^Message  of  Governor  Kent  with  Appendices,  25-21 . 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Maine  Carries  Her  Case  to  Washington. 

N reaching  Washington  Mr.  Daveis  found  that  Mr.  Davee, 
a member  of  the  national  House  of  Representatives  from 
Maine,  had  introduced  a resolution  calling  upon  the 
president  of  the  United  States  to  inform  the  House  what 
measures,  if  any,  had  been  taken  by  the  executive  for  the  release 
of  Mr.  Greely;  also  to  communicate  any  correspondence  he  may 
have  had  with  the  British  government,  or  the  executive  of  Maine, 
with  reference  to  Mr.  Greely’s  imprisonment.  At  the  same  time, 
the  president  (if  in  his  judgment  it  would  not  be  incompatible 
with  public  interest)  was  requested  to  communicate  to  the  House 
any  correspondence  between  the  government  of  the  United  States 
and  that  of  Great  Britain  “respecting  the  wardenship,  occupation, 
or  actual  possession  of  that  part  of  the  territory  of  the  State  of 
Maine  which  is  claimed  by  Great  Britain.”  ^ 

On  the  15th  of  December  preceding,  Mr.  Evans,  of  Maine,  had 
given  notice  in  the  House  that,  on  the  first  day  when  the  states 
should  be  called,  he  would  ask  leave  to  introduce  a bill  for  the 
demarcation  of  the  northeastern  boundary  line.  No  such  oppor- 
tunity for  the  introduction  of  the  bill  was  afforded,  however,  but 
on  January  29,  1838,  a message  was  received  from  the  president, 
transmitting  certain  documents  concerning  the  imprisonment  of 
Mr.  Greely;  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  Evans  consideration  of  the 
documents  was  postponed  until  February  7th,  when  he  asked  that 
they  should  be  referred  to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations.  He 
also  requested  leave  to  introduce  the  bill,  previously  mentioned 
by  him,  for  surveying  the  northeastern  boundary  of  the  United 

^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  86.  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, in  the  Senate,  also  called  for  the  correspondence  on  February  2nd. 
Ih.,  156. 


232 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


States  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  Objec- 
tion being  made,  Mr.  Evans  addressed  the  House,  concluding  his 
speech  on  the  following  day. 

He  was  reluctant,  he  said,  to  persevere  in  his  purpose  to  call 
attention  to  boundary  matters  against  the  wishes  of  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  on  ways  and  means,  who  had  appealed  to  him 
for  a further  postponement  of  the  subject;  but  he  felt  that  he 
would  be  wanting  in  his  duty  to  the  State  of  Maine  if  he  neglected 
to  take  the  first  opportunity  which  had  offered  for  bringing  this 
important  subject  to  the  attention  of  the  House — a subject  that 
had  never  been  discussed  in  Congress,  and  yet  was  one  of  the 
most  deep  and  abiding  interest  to  the  states  of  Maine  and  Massa- 
chusetts. Even  the  president,  in  his  message,  had  expressed  his 
great  surprise  that  the  government  had  been  organized  for  half  a 
century  and  yet  did  not  know  its  own  limits.  The  object  of  his 
bill  was  to  accelerate  the  movements  of  the  general  government  to 
a settlement  of  the  issue.  What  he  desired  was  that  the  legisla- 
tive power  of  the  country  should  come  to  the  aid  of  the  executive. 
The  bill  he  had  presented  was  not  his  measure  only.  It  was  a 
measure  of  the  people  of  Maine,  and  was  called  for  by  its  Legis- 
lature. “in  offering  it,”  he  said,  “l  but  obey  the  voice  and  con- 
form to  the  will  of  the  State,  distinctly  expressed  in  resolutions 
now  upon  your  table.” 

As  Mr.  Evans  proceeded,  the  speaker’s  strong  grasp  of  the 
facts  in  the  case  enlisted  the  attention  of  his  hearers.  A states- 
man was  marshaling  those  facts.  Other  matters  of  business,  how- 
ever pressing,  were  forgotten.  The  objection  to  the  speaker’s 
obstruction  of  the  appropriation  bill  was  at  length  withdrawn; 
and  Mr.  Evans  accomplished  his  purpose,  as  announced  early  in 
his  speech  when  he  said,  “Something  must  be  done,  and  that 
soon.  I propose  to  do  it  now." 

The  whole  history  of  the  controversy  hitherto  was  reviewed. 
Exceedingly  forceful  was  the  speaker  in  showing  that  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  boundary  negotiations  the  British  admitted  that  the 
description  of  the  line  in  the  treaty  located  the  “highlands” 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


233 


north  of  the  St.  John  River;  that  later  they  asked  for  the  “varia- 
tion” of  the  line  by  the  cession  of  a small  tract  of  unsettled  coun- 
try in  order  to  secure  direct  communication  between  Quebec  and 
Halifax;  that  failing  in  this  they  raised  a feeble  doubt  whether 
that  tract  did  not  already  belong  to  Great  Britain;  then  they 
denied  the  American  claim  as  incapable  of  location;  when  at 
length  the  question  was  made  the  subject  of  arbitration,  and  border 
troubles  arose,  an  arrangement  was  suggested  in  accordance  with 
which  neither  party,  pending  the  arbitration,  was  to  exercise 
exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  disputed  territory,  but  both  were  to 
practice  forbearance.  Meanwhile,  Great  Britain,  increasing  her 
pretensions,  came  to  assert  exclusive  sovereignty,  arrested  and 
imprisoned  American  citizens,  until  the  United  States  govern- 
ment practically  left  Great  Britain  in  entire  possession.  Now 
both  governments  were  talking  of  “an  assumed  line  of  boundary,  ’ ’ 
“a  conventional  line,”  a line  “freed  from  the  restraints  of  a due 
north  line.”  Against  this  Mr.  Evans  protested.  Hence  his  bill, 
designed  to  put  an  end  forthwith  to  an  arrangement  “supposed  to 
be  subsisting,  whereby  the  territory  in  dispute  has  passed  from 
the  possession  and  jurisdiction  of  Maine,  where  it  rightfully 
belongs,  to  the  possession  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  British 
authority—an  arrangement  which,  as  we  believe,  has  operated 
strongly  in  procrastinating  the  negotiations  between  the  govern- 
ments of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  which  has  been  the 
foundation  of  new  pretensions  and  fresh  aggressions,  which  has 
exposed  our  territory  to  be  plundered  of  its  valuable  productions, 
and  has  surrendered  up  our  citizens  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned 
for  obedience  to  our  laws  at  the  pleasure  of  a foreign  power.”  ^ 

John  Fairfield,^  who  was  serving  his  second  term  as  a member 

'^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  168. 

®Mr.  Fairfield  was  born  in  Saco,  Maine,  January  30,  1797.  He  studied  law 
with  Judge  Ether  Shepley,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1826.  In  1832,  he 
was  made  reporter  of  decisions  of  the  .supreme  court.  He  was  elected  a rep- 
resentative in  Congress  in  1835  and  1837,  but  resigned  on  being  elected  gov- 
ernor of  Maine  in  1838.  He  was  re-elected  governor  in  1839,  1841  and  1842. 
When  Reuel  Williams  resigned  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Mr. 


234 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  Maine,  and  became  the  next 
governor  of  the  state,  also  addressed  the  House  in  support  of  the 
bill,  -which,  on  March  13th,  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  for- 
eign affairs.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  these  two  speeches 
brought  Maine’s  case  before  Congress  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  such  a way  as  not  only  to  command  attention, 
but  also  to  awaken  support  for  the  state  in  her  attitude  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  ever  advancing  claims  of  the  British  government. 

Early  after  his  arrival  in  Washington,  Mr.  Daveis  had  an  inter- 
view with  the  secretary  of  state  concerning  a reimbursement  to 
Maine  for  allowances  made  by  the  state  to  Mr.  Greely  and  others 
on  account  of  their  losses  and  sufferings  in  connection  with  bound- 
ary troubles.  The  secretary,  in  reply,  took  the  ground  that  the 
president  had  no  power  to  reimburse  the  state  without  the  author- 
ity of  Congress.  When,  on  May  29th,  the  matter  was  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Mr.  Evans, 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  Mr.  Howard, 
reminded  the  House  that  a similar  application  on  behalf  of  the 
State  of  Maine  was  received  in  the  previous  year  and  rejected. 
At  his  request,  however,  after  referring  to  the  matter  at  consider- 
able length,  the  application  for  reimbursement  was  laid  upon  the 
table;  and  it  rested  there  until  the  close  of  the  session,  when  it 
was  again  called  up,  receiving  finally  the  sanction  of  both  branches 
of  Congress  and  the  approval  of  the  president,  a tribute  to  the 
labors  of  the  Maine  delegation  and  the  tactful  general  manage- 
ment of  the  special  agent  of  Maine. ^ 

In  approaching  the  general  government  with  reference  to  the 
necessity  and  expediency  of  some  effective  measures  for  running 
the  line  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the  bill  before  Congress,  Mr. 
Daveis  found  that  the  president  had  opened  another  negotia- 
tion with  the  British  government,  having  in  view  a provisional 

Fairfield  -was  elected  as  his  successor,  and  -was  re-elected  in  1845.  He  died 
in  Washington,  December  24,  1847. 

^This  action,  which  was  taken  July  7,  1838,  appropriated  ;?1,175.00  to  reim- 
burse the  State  of  Maine  for  appropriations  in  favor  of  Ebenezer  S.  Greely, 
John  Baker  and  others. 


John  Fairfiei,d 


‘•‘".-I  T^’iv-  ■•’■' 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


235 


arrangement  for  a mutual  survey  of  the  boundary  with  reference 
to  the  future  establishment  of  the  line.  This  negotiation,  it  was 
understood,  was  on  the  basis  of  what  was  designated  as  the  orig- 
inal American  proposition  with  modifications  offered  by  the  Brit- 
ish government.^  This  was  the  unfortunate  proposition  of  Mr. 
Livingston,  in  which,  as  already  mentioned,  the  former  secretary 
of  state  abandoned  the  north  line  of  the  treaty  of  1783  in  pursuit 
of  “highlands”  at  some  point  westward  of  the  “due  north  line.” 
In  the  proposition,  also,  there  was  an  abandonment  of  the  refer- 
ence in  the  treaty  to  “highlands”  dividing  waters  flowing  into 
the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 
To  that  proposition  the  attitude  of  Maine  was  now  made  so  plain, 
it  was  believed,  that  the  boundary  question  was  “freed  from  any 
such  suicidal  concession;”  and  Mr.  Daveis  had  reason  for  regard- 
ing it  as  a matter  of  congratulation  that  the  unaccountable  mis- 
conception, which  had  so  long  prevailed  on  this  subject,  and  with 
such  disastrous  effect  in  connection  with  the  negotiations,  had 
now  been  removed,  and  it  was  hoped  forever.^ 

But  the  most  important  part  of  Mr.  Daveis’  mission  had  refer- 
ence to  the  clear  and  well-settled  views  of  the  State  of  Maine  as 
expressed  in  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Legislature  and 
approved  by  the  governor,  March  23,  1838.  These  resolutions,  it 
will  be  remembered,  had  reference  to  the  necessity  for  the  adop- 
tion of  some  effective  measures  for  running  the  line  in  accordance 
with  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 

^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  386. 

-Ib.,  54-61.  Mr.  Daveis’  services  at  this  time  received  from  Governor 
Kent  the  following  commendation:  “I  think  I can  confidently  say  that  no 
agent  or  envoy  ever  labored  more  diligently  or  more  intelligently  or  effi- 
ciently than  he  did By  his  earnest  persuasions,  he  induced  both 

Mr.  Webster  (on  the  4th  of  July)  and  Mr.  Buchanan  and  others,  to  espouse 
our  cause  distinctly  and  earnestly  in  strong  speeches.  He  alone  brought  the 
whole  question  out  of  its  narrow  locality  in  the  state  into  a national  matter, 

regarded  as  one  of  interest  to  the  whole  country I have  always 

believed  that  Maine  owed  more  to  him  than  to  any  other  man  in  thus  bring- 
ing the  whole  subject  before  the  nation  and  compelling  action.”  Memoir  of 
Charles  S.  Daveis,  by  David  G.  Haskins,  Esq. 


236 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


May  14,  1838,  a bill  similar  to  that  introduced  in  the  House  by 
Mr.  Evans  was  brought  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Williams,^  of 
Maine,  and  referred.^  At  that  time  the  House  bill  had  been 
reported  back  to  that  body  without  any  indication  on  the  part  of 
the  committee  on  foreign  relations  as  to  its  disposal;  and  it  re- 
mained on  the  table  of  the  House  awaiting  favorable  opportunity 
for  action,  perhaps  with  reference  to  action  elsewhere.  On  June 
14th,  according  to  the  record  in  the  Globed  Mr.  Webster,  in  the 
Senate,  “took  up  Mr.  Williams’  motion  for  leave  to  bring  in  a 
bill  for  instituting  a joint  commission — British  and  American — 
of  exploration  and  survey,  to  determine  the  northeastern  bound- 
ary of  the  United  States  on  the  basis  of  the  treaty  of  1783.”  An 
earlier  record  in  the  Globe  seems  to  indicate  that  the  bill  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Williams  had  gone  to  some  committee  not  men- 
tioned, probably  that  on  foreign  relations.  This  much  is  certain, 
however,  that  Mr.  Webster  found  opportunity  for  addressing  the 
Senate  with  reference  to  the  boundary  controversy.  Unfortu- 
nately his  speech  has  not  come  down  to  us.  We  know,  however, 
from  the  brief  record  in  the  Globe  that  he  “spoke  at  large  on  the 
subject,  chiefly  with  a view  to  show  that  the  line,  designated  by 
the  treaty  of  1783,  was  well  defined  and  easily  and  readily  to  be 
found.”  This  was  the  fact  upon  which  Maine  had  insisted  from 
the  first,  and  was  still  insisting,  but  which  Great  Britain,  with 
increasing  determination,  endeavored  to  obscure,  and  finally  to 
deny.  That  Maine  now,  in  Daniel  Webster,  had  so  powerful  an 
advocate  was  a most  hopeful  sign.  At  the  request  of  Mr. 

iReuel  Williams  was  born  in  that  part  of  Hallowell  now  known  as  Augusta, 
Maine,  June  2,  1783.  In  1804,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  rapidly  rose 
to  professional  prominence  in  the  state.  Early  he  was  made  agent  for  the 
“Proprietors  of  the  Kennebec  Purchase.’’  In  1822-1825,  he  was  a member 
of  the  Maine  House  of  Representatives,  and  of  the  Senate  in  1826-1828.  In 
1837,  he  was  elected  a member  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  served 
until  1843.  He  died  July  25,  1862,  leaving  a record  of  faithful,  honorable 
service. 

'^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  373. 

®Ib. , 25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  453. 


Reuel  Williams 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


237 


Buchanan/  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  the 
bill  was  laid  on  the  table.  Evidently  Mr.  Buchanan  had  been 
greatly  impressed  by  what  Mr.  Webster  had  said;  for  on  June 
18th,  again  calling  up  the  bill,  and  addressing  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Buchanan  said  it  was  not  his  intention  to  examine  in  detail  the 
title  of  the  United  States  to  the  disputed  territory,  “if  I ever 
had  intended  it,”  he  said,  “l  should  have  abandoned  the  inten- 
tion after  hearing  the  senator  from  Massachusetts.  For  clearness 
of  statement  and  accuracy  of  detail,  I have  rarely  heard  anything 
superior  to  his  speech.  I feel  confident  that  every  senator  who 
attended  to  it,  must  have  been  convinced,  not  only  of  the  justice 
but  the  clearness  of  our  title.  ’ ’ ^ 

In  his  own  speech,  of  which  we  have  an  extended  report,  Mr. 
Buchanan  followed  Mr.  Webster  in  upholding  Maine’s  contention 
that  it  was  folly  to  talk  of  any  conventional  boundary  line  when 
the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783  is  plain,  direct.  “This  propo- 
sition for  any  conventional  line  whatever,”  said  Mr.  Buchanan, 
“has  been  rejected  by  the  American  government,  it  has  been 
rejected  by  the  government  of  Maine,  and  I hope  we  may  never 
again  hear  it  mentioned.  The  treaty  is  the  foundation  of  our 
rights.  To  that,  and  to  that  alone,  we  ought  to  cling,  until  it 
shall  be  found,  which  I deem  impossible  from  the  nature  of  things, 
that  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  cannot  be  found,  and 
that  the  idea  of  a dividing  ridge  between  the  waters  which  flow 
in  different  directions  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  is  a mere  delusive 
fancy.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  ought  we  again  to  discuss  the 
question  of  a conventional  line.”  ^ 

But  a difficulty  had  arisen  because  of  the  government’s 
announcement  to  Great  Britain  of  its  willingness  to  enter  into  an 
arrangement  with  that  country  “for  the  establishment  of  a joint 
commission  of  survey  and  exploration  upon  the  basis  of  the  ‘orig- 

^ James  Buchanan,  fifteenth  president  of  the  United  States;  United  States 
senator  from  Pennsylvania,  1833-1845;  secretary  of  state,  1845-1849;  minister 
to  Great  Britain,  1853-1856;  president,  1857-1861. 

"^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  383. 

®Ib.,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  384. 


238 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


inal  American  proposition’  and  the  modifications  offered  by  her 
Majesty’s  government.”^  In  this  state  of  the  government’s 
negotiation  with  the  British  government,  the  important  prelimi- 
naries having  all  been  settled,  Mr.  Williams’  bill  was  a proposal 
to  arrest  the  progress  of  these  negotiations,  take  the  matter  out  of 
the  president’s  hands,  and  by  an  act  of  Congress  “to  run  and 
mark  and  establish  this  line  against  the  consent  of  Great  Britain.” 
Such  a course,  Mr.  Buchanan  thought,  might  prove  fatal  to  the 
interests  of  Maine,  and  would  be,  he  said,  “an  open  palpable  vio- 
lation of  public  faith.” 

But  Mr.  Buchanan  went  farther  and  held  that  the  Legislature 
of  Maine  transcended  its  legitimate  power  in  adopting  a resolu- 
tion declaring  that  “if  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
either  alone,  or  in  conjunction  with  Great  Britain  or  the  State  of 
Maine,  shall  not  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  September  next, 
establish  and  appoint  a commission  for  a survey  of  said  boundary 
line,  it  shall  then  be  the  imperative  duty  of  the  governor,  without 
further  delay,  to  appoint  forthwith  suitable  commissions  and  sur- 
veyors for  ascertaining,  running  and  locating  the  northeastern 
boundary  line  of  this  State,  and  to  cause  the  same  to  be  carried 
into  operation.”  Such  an  expression,  he  thought,  manifested 
more  of  passion  than  of  policy,  and  he  felt  confident  that  the 
good  sense  and  the  ardent  patriotism  which  so  strongly  character- 
ize the  people  of  Maine  would  induce  them  to  pause  and  reflect 
long  before  carrying  this  determination  into  effect.^ 

Replying  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  on  the  same  day,  Mr.  Williams 
thanked  the  Pennsylvania  senator  for  his  able  and  unanswerable 
argument  in  support  of  the  right  of  Maine  and  of  the  United 
States  to  hold  the  disputed  territory  according  to  the  line  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  and  for  exhibiting  the  unsoundness  of  the  argu- 
ments of  the  British  government  in  the  endeavor  to  establish  its 
own  claim.  But  when  he  supposes,  he  added,  “that  Maine  wishes 

^ Letter  of  the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  May  8,  1838,  to  the  governor 
of  Maine.  Appendix  to  Congresssional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, VI,  386. 

2 Ib.,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  386. 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


239 


to  take  the  law  into  her  own  hands,  and  in  the  measures  she  has 
adopted  appears  to  have  been  governed  more  by  passion  than  by 
policy,”  he  felt  bound  as  a citizen  of  that  state,  and  one  of  her 
senators,  to  state  the  facts  in  the  case,  from  which  the  senators 
could  judge  whether  or  not  the  State  of  Maine  should  be  regarded 
as  acting  from  passion,  or  from  a just  estimate  of  her  important 
rights  and  of  the  proper  means  for  their  maintenance.  He  then 
called  attention  to  the  correspondence  between  the  two  govern- 
ments with  reference  to  the  boundary.  Replying  to  the  charge 
that  Maine  acted  inconsistently  in  finding  fault  with  the  recent 
proposition  of  the  president  to  the  British  minister,  inasmuch  as 
her  governor  and  Legislature  had  invited  the  measure,  he  said 
this  depended  upon  a just  construction  of  the  resolutions  adopted 
and  approved  by  the  authorities  of  Maine,  “it  may  be,  and  prob- 
ably is  true,  that  her  acts  and  resolutions  have  been  considered  by 
the  President  as  indicating  her  desire  for  the  establishment  of  a 
commission  of  exploration  and  survey;  but  knowing,  as  I do,  the 
feelings  of  the  people  of  Maine  upon  thi^  question,  and  having 
examined  the  report  of  the  committee  to  whom  Mr.  Forsyth’s 
letter  and  the  message  of  the  governor  were  referred,  I am  well 
satisfied  that  it  was  not  intended  by  the  Legislature,  or  by  her 
resolutions,  to  express  any  desire  for  the  creation  of  a commission 
upon  the  principles  proposed  by  Mr.  Forsyth  to  Mr.  Fox,  in  his 
letter  of  27th  April  last.”  ^ 

The  debate  was  continued  on  June  20th  by  Senators  Clay, 
Buchanan,  Davis,  Wright,  Calhoun  and  Rives,  and  then  referred 
to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations.  The  facts  in  the  case  had 
been  frankly  and  fully  stated,  and  unity  of  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Senate  was  regarded  as  assured.  Mr.  Daveis,  in  his  report 
of  the  debate,^  referred  to  the  services  of  Mr.  Davis,®  senator  from 

'^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  396, 
397. 

^ Ib.,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  464,465. 

* Hon.  John  Davis,  the  twelfth  governor  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massa- 
chusetts. After  serving  one  term  as  governor,  he  was  elected  a member  of 


240 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Massachusetts,  “who,  without  derogation  from  the  merits  of  any 
other  honorable  member  of  that  body,  it  may  be  due  to  say,  dis- 
tinguished himself,  throughout  the  debate,  as  the  inflexible  and 
unflinching  champion  of  the  rights  of  Maine,  and  of  the  position 
she  had  assumed,  and  the  principles  she  had  maintained  through 
circumstances  of  great  trial  to  her  fortitude  and  forbearance.”  ^ 

The  report  of  the  Senate  committee  on  foreign  relations  was 
made  on  July  4th,  a fltting  occasion  for  the  presentation  of  a doc- 
ument wholly  in  harmony  with  the  patriotic  memories  which 
Independence  Day  always  evokes.  Mr.  Buchanan,  chairman  of 
the  committee,  submitted  its  report,  covering  nearly  sixteen 
printed  pages.  “Has  the  United  States,  beyond  a reasonable 
doubt,  a clear  title  to  the  disputed  territory?”  was  the  flrst  ques- 
tion considered.  This,  it  was  asserted,  depends  upon  the  correct 
construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  language  of  the  treaty, 
accordingly,  was  carefully  examined.  The  source  of  the  St. 
Croix  River,  from  which  the  “due  north  line”  was  to  be  run,  had 
been  ascertained  by  a joint  commission  appointed  by  the  two  gov- 
ernments, and  a monument  had  been  erected  at  its  source.  The 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  was  shown  to  be  at  a point  long 
known  and  well  established.  It  was  also  shown  that  the  con- 
struction placed  upon  the  treaty,  fifteen  years  after  its  ratification 
by  the  solemn  oflBcial  declarations  of  high,  responsible  agents  of 
the  British  government,  was  “wholly  inconsistent  with  the  pres- 
ent claim  of  Great  Britain,  embracing  about  one-third  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  State  of  Maine.”  The  principles  on  which  Great 
Britain  now  rested  her  claim  to  the  disputed  territory  were  then 
considered,  first  that  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  is  to  be 
found  at  Mars  Hill,  and  that  the  “highlands”  of  the  treaty  are  to 
be  found  to  the  westward  of  that  point;  second,  that  if  this  be  not 
the  true  treaty  line,  it  is  impossible  to  find  it.  The  extraordinary 
pretensions  and  assumptions  upon  which  the  claim  is  thus  made 

the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  but  resigned  in  1841,  and  again  became  gov- 
ernor of  Massachusetts.  He  died  in  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  April  19,  1854. 

'^Appendix  to  the  Governor' s Message,  January  2,  1839,  No.  16,  64,  65. 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON.  241 

to  rest  were  sharply  and  forcefully  reviewed,  and  this  part  of  the 
report  closed  with  the  words,  “Upon  the  whole,  the  committee 
do  not  entertain  a doubt  of  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the 
whole  of  the  disputed  territory.  They  go  further,  and  state  that 
if  the  general  government  be  not  both  able  and  willing  to  protect 
the  territory  of  each  state  inviolate,  then  it  will  have  proved  itself 
incapable  of  performing  one  of  its  first  and  highest  duties.” 

The  committee  then  considered  the  second  proposed  question, 
namely,  “Does  no  other  and  more  friendly  expedient  remain 
untried  of  bringing  this  long  pending  controversy  to  a conclu- 
sion, than  the  passage  of  the  bill  referred  to  them  by  the  Senate  ?’  ’ 
This  question  was  answered  in  the  affirmative.  Although  the 
members  of  the  committee  were  firmly  convinced  that  the  title  of 
the  United  States  to  the  territory  in  dispute  was  clear  and  unques- 
tionable ; although  they  acknowledged  that  the  State  of  Maine 
had  just  reason  to  complain  not  only  of  the  long  and  vexatious 
delay  which  had  been  experienced  in  settling  this  question,  but 
of  the  assumption  of  actual  jurisdiction  by  Great  Britain  over  a 
portion  of  Maine’s  territory ; they  still  entertained  a very  confident 
hope  that  the  pending  negotiation  would  be  productive  of  happy 
results.  The  important  preliminaries  of  a convention  between 
the  two  governments  for  the  purpose  of  exploring  and  survey- 
ing the  disputed  lines  of  the  treaty  boundary  had  already  been 
adjusted,  and  it  seemed  not  advisable  to  withdraw  the  subject 
from  the  president,  to  whom  it  more  properly  belonged,  but  to 
direct  the  boundaries  to  be  surveyed,  the  lines  to  be  marked  and 
monuments  to  be  erected  thereon,  under  the  authority  of  Congress. 

In  place  of  the  bill  referred  to  them,  accordingly,  the  commit- 
tee recommended  the  adoption  of  three  resolutions,  in  which, 
while  entertaining  no  doubt  of  the  practicability  of  running  the 
boundary  line  as  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  believing  in 
the  validity  of  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  whole  of  the 
disputed  territory,  considering,  also,  the  great  delay  which  had 
hitherto  marked  the  negotiations  of  the  two  countries  in  their 
endeavor  amicably  to  settle  the  controversy,  and  the  danger  of 


16 


242 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


continued  irritation  and  collision  on  the  border,  the  committee 
recommended  that  the  pending  negotiation  should  be  brought  to 
a close  ; also,  that  it  was  inexpedient  for  the  United  States  to  pro- 
ceed to  survey  and  mark  the  boundary  until  all  reasonable  means 
had  been  exhausted  for  effecting  that  object  by  the  consent  and 
concurrence  of  both  parties.  The  Senate  committee,  therefore, 
desired  that  the  bill  referred  to  it,  providing  for  the  survey,  ought 
not  to  pass,  but  should  be  laid  upon  the  table.* 

Mr.  Clay,  addressing  the  Senate,  said  the  report  should  be 
weighed  with  all  the  attention  and  consideration  belonging  to  so 
grave  and  important  a subject.  The  work  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  who  had  devoted  to  it  much  labor  and  great  ability, 
was  all  the  more  creditable  to  its  author,  as  it  had  been  prepared 
while  he  was  engaged  in  various  other  pressing  duties.  He  was 
anxious,  he  said,  that  the  sense  of  the  Senate  with  reference  to 
the  subject  of  the  resolutions,  as  recommended,  should  be  taken 
with  as  little  delay  as  was  possible. 

Mr.  Tallmadge,  of  New  York,  as  a member  of  the  committee 
on  foreign  relations,  said  he  had  carefully  examined  the  report 
and  concurred  entirely  with  the  senator  from  Kentucky  as  to  the 
ability  with  which  it  had  been  prepared  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  presented  the  great  question.  If,  unhappily,  at  any  time  here- 
after any  collision  should  arise  between  the  two  countries,  which 
he  hoped  most  sincerely  would  be  avoided,  it  was  very  important 
that  the  people  of  the  country  should  understand  the  merits  of 
the  controversy.  They  were  set  forth  in  that  report  in  a con- 
densed, and  at  the  same  time  sufficiently  complete  and  ample 
manner  to  enable  them  fully  to  comprehend  and  understand  it. 
The  report  ought,  therefore,  to  be  widely  circulated.  It  was  cal- 
culated to  unite  and  concentrate  the  sentiment  of  the  country,  if 
occasion,  which  he  earnestly  deprecated,  should  ever  arise.  He 
therefore  moved  for  the  printing  of  ten  thousand  extra  copies  of 
the  report. 

Mr.  Rives,  of  Virginia,  expressed  his  cordial  and  entire  con- 

Document  No.  502,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  1-16. 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


243 


currence  in  the  remarks  which  had  been  made  by  his  colleagues 
on  the  committee.  The  report  was  drawn  with  distinguished 
ability,  clearness  and  force.  The  argument  on  both  sides  was 
fairly  represented,  and  the  paper  would  compare,  to  great  advan- 
tage, with  whatever  had  been  written,  that  he  had  seen,  upon  the 
subject.  It  was  very  important  that  the  merits  of  the  question 
should  be  made  familiar  to  the  American  mind;  and  no  document, 
he  conceived,  was  better  calculated  to  enlighten  and  conduct  it 
to  sound  conclusions.  He  should  vote,  therefore,  with  the  great- 
est pleasure,  for  the  number  of  copies  proposed,  and  even  for  the 
highest  number  any  senator  might  deem  it  expedient  to  have 
published. 

Mr.  Williams,  of  Maine,  said  that  the  great  importance  of  the 
question,  and  the  able  manner  in  which  it  was  treated  and  our 
right  maintained  in  the  report,  induced  him  to  desire  that  a larger 
number  of  copies  of  the  report  than  that  proposed  by  the  senator 
from  New  York,  should  be  printed.  Everyone  must  see  that  im- 
portant results  may  grow  out  of  the  report  and  resolutions;  and 
it  is  very  desirable  that  as  many  of  our  citizens  as  can  be  induced 
to  look  at  the  question,  should  have  the  means  at  hand  of  under- 
standing it,  and  of  being  convinced  that  we  are  claiming  our  right 
and  nothing  more.  This  report,  coming  from  the  committee  on 
foreign  relations,  and  from  senators  possessing  the  confidence  of 
the  nation,  must  carry  conviction  to  the  mind  of  every  man  who 
will  read  it;  therefore  he  asked  that  twenty  thousand  copies 
should  be  printed. 

Mr.  Allen  said  he  would  vote  for  the  printing  of  the  largest 
number  of  copies  proposed.  This  controversy  has  assumed  a very 
imposing  aspect;  so  much  so,  indeed,  as  to  render  it  more  than 
possible  that  the  united  energies  of  this  people  may  be  required 
in  its  future  adjustment.  Yet,  so  exclusively  local  has  the  ques- 
tion been  considered  hitherto,  that  its  discussion  has  excited  pub- 
lic attention  in  no  other  quarter  of  the  Union  than  that  more  im- 
mediately interested  in  it.  It  has  not  caught  the  attention  of  the 
great  body  of  the  American  people.  This  state  of  things  can  no 


244 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


longer  exist.  The  controversy  has  now  taken  a form  that  must 
interest  everj'  citizen  of  the  republic.  He  would  therefore  place 
this  report  before  the  country  as  evidence  of  the  justice  of  our 
claim,  and  of  the  position  which  our  government  has  taken,  in 
order  that  the  public  judgment,  and  with  it  the  public  energies 
of  the  nation,  may  be  concentrated  in  support  of  that  claim  in 
anj^  emergency  to  which  its  adjustment  may  give  rise. 

Mr.  Clay  said  it  was  his  wish  that  the  report  might  be  acted 
upon  that  day.  As  he  advanced  in  life,  he  acknowledged  the 
influence  of  feelings  and  sentiments  which  might  be  regarded  as 
bordering  upon  superstition.  At  all  events,  there  was  a peculiar 
fitness  in  resolving  on  the  Fourth  of  July  to  maintain  the  integrity 
and  inviolability  of  the  old  thirteen  United  States. 

The  resolutions  offered  by  the  committee  were  then  agreed  to 
without  opposition,  and  it  was  ordered  that  twenty  thousand 
copies  of  the  report  and  resolutions  should  be  printed.’ 

It  is  a matter  of  regret  that  the  Congressional  Globe  has  not 
preserved  for  us  the  speeches  made  in  the  Senate  during  this  dis- 
cussion with  the  exception  of  those  of  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr. 
Williams.  Especially  is  it  to  be  regretted  that  we  have  no  report 
of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  which  was  so  highly  commended 
by  those  who  heard  it.  Unquestionably  his  early  participation  in 
the  Senate’s  consideration  of  the  committee’s  report  was  of  great 
assistance  in  placing  the  wEole  discussion  upon  such  a high  level 
as  to  make  Maine’s  case  the  case  of  the  country  as  a whole.  Not 
only  in  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  debate,  but  by  the  twenty 
thousand  copies  of  the  committee’s  report,  Maine’s  case  was  car- 
ried to  all  parts  of  the  land. 

Mr.  Daveis,  who,  as  the  special  agent  of  Maine  in  Washington, 
understood  the  situation  in  all  its  aspects,  referring  to  this  debate 
in  his  report  to  Governor  Kent,  said:  “The  whole  subject  was 
thus  spread  before  the  country  and  the  world.  This  was  the  first 
full  and  deliberate  expression  of  that  body  upon  it.  And  wEen 
we  consider  its  solemnity,  and  the  character  of  that  august  assem- 

^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  496,  497. 


MAINE  CARRIES  HER  CASE  TO  WASHINGTON. 


245 


bly,  the  weight  and  importance  of  that  opinion  must  be  regarded 
as  immense.  Previous  to  that  time  the  subject  had  only  been 
before  the  Senate  under  special  and  limited  aspects.  Singular  as 
it  may  seem,  it  was  admitted  not  to  have  been  generally  under- 
stood, and  to  have  been  little  considered,  or  indeed  realized, 
among  the  community.  The  question  was  one,  which  had  pre- 
sented itself  to  minds  of  the  first  intelligence  in  other  parts  of  the 
Union  very  much  in  the  light  of  a local  controversy.  It  had 
been  regarded  in  some  measure  as  a remote  and  obscure  border 
difficulty,  about  which  there  might  be  room  for  different  conclu- 
sions; and  was  not  looked  upon  as  of  a nature  to  interest,  or 
require,  general  attention.  This  idea  was  entirely  dispelled.  A 
new  light,  moreover,  was  shed  upon  the  subject.  The  discussion 
itself  had  served,  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  to  fix  the  attention 
of  the  Senate,  to  many  of  whose  members  the  impression  was 
comparatively  new,  upon  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  question; 
and  a conviction  was  produced  among  all  who  were  present,  and 
who  were  not  in  any  foreign  interest,  no  less  in  favor  of  the 
integrity  of  it  on  our  part,  than  of  its  character  of  immediate 
public  importance.  Opinion  in  these  respects  was  informed,  en- 
larged, convinced  and  concentrated.  The  most  perfect  accord- 
ance displayed  itself  upon  all  quarters;  and  it  was  emphatically 
acknowledged,  and  expressed,  from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  that 
Maine  had  made  out  a clear  case.”  ^ 

These  proceedings  in  the  United  States  Senate  with  reference 
to  the  boundary  had  a strong  influence  upon  the  action  that  fol- 
lowed in  the  House  of  Representatives.  On  July  7th,  Mr.  Fair- 
field,  of  Maine,  from  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  reported 
back  the  bill  to*provide  for  surveying  the  northeastern  boundary 
line  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  accompanied  by  the  first  two  of  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  Senate.  He  then  moved  the  consideration  of  these  two 
resolutions,  and  the  House,  evidently  without  discussion,  unani- 
mously concurred  with  the  Senate  in  its  action;  but  it  left  the 

'^Appendix  to  the  Governor' s Message,  January  2,  1839,  No.  16,  66,  67. 


246 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


third  Senate  resolution  upon  the  table,  refusing  thus  to  agree  with 
that  body  in  its  vote  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  proceed  to  survey 
and  mark  the  boundary  until  both  countries  should  concur  in 
effecting  that  object.^ 

^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  VI,  502. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
Other  Surveys. 


T will  be  remembered  that  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  in 
requesting  the  representatives  of  the  state  in  Congress 
to  urge  the  passage  of  a pending  bill  for  a survey  of  the 
northeastern  boundary,  added  this  direction,  that  in  case 
the  bill  should  not  become  a law  during  that  session  of  Congress, 
and  if  the  government  of  the  United  States,  either  alone  or  in 
conjunction  with  Great  Britain  or  the  State  of  Maine,  should  not 
on  or  before  September  1,  1838,  establish  and  appoint  a commis- 
sion for  a survey  of  the  boundary,  it  would  become  the  imperative 
duty  of  the  governor  of  Maine  to  appoint  forthwith  suitable  com- 
missioners and  surveyors  for  ascertaining,  running  and  locating 
the  northeastern  boundary  of  the  state,  and  to  cause  the  same  to 
be  carried  into  execution.  This  action  of  the  Legislature  was 
designed  to  hasten  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  question;  and 
to  some,  undoubtedly,  it  was  a matter  of  regret  that  the  proposed 
measure  for  securing  such  a survey  did  not  receive  the  sanction 
of  Congress.  As  the  bill  failed,  however,  and  as  the  Legislature  of 
Maine  could  not  reconsider  its  action,  being  no  longer  in  ses- 
sion, it  only  remained  for  the  governor  to  proceed  in  accordance 
with  the  mandate  contained  in  the  resolution,  and  make  the 
appointment  of  commissioners  and  surveyors.  Mr.  Daveis,  in 
his  report,  referred  to  the  situation  in  these  words;  “it  is  the 
demand  of  the  people  of  Maine  that  the  line  shall  be  run.  The 
unanimous  verdict  of  the  country  has  been  pronounced  in  favor 
of  their  right;  and  Congress  certainly  has  not  in  this,  or  in  any 
other  manner,  expressed  any  opinion  unfavorable  to  the  proper 
proceeding  of  the  State,  within  its  clear  limits,  upon  its  own 
responsibility.  In  the  situation,  on  the  other  hand,  in  which 
Congress  felt  obliged  to  leave  the  subject  of  a survey  by  the 


248 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


national  authority,  from  the  pending  state  of  negotiation,  it  is  not 
to  be  inferred  that  public  sentiment  might  not  be  satisfied  with 
such  a construction  of  w'hat  has  taken  place,  on  the  one  part,  and 
on  the  other  as  should  leave  Maine  free  to  follow  the  true  line  of 
her  own  resolves,  until  there  should  be  a virtual  compliance  with 
their  positive  requirement,  in  the  first  instance,  by  means  of  an 
actual  arrangement  between  the  two  governments,  or  the  federal 
government  should  adopt  a course  of  its  own  in  relation  to  the 
survey;  and  that  the  sense  of  the  country,  it  may  be  inferred, 
w'ould  not  be  against  our  proceeding  to  that  extent.  Such  a 
course,  on  the  part  of  Maine,  might  not  be  deemed  to  be  unsuit- 
able, in  the  first  place,  to  maintain  her  consistency,  and  to 
manifest  the  constancy  of  the  State,  and  to  give  a character  of 
completeness  and  firmness  to  its  action.  It  comports  with  the 
freedom  of  our  political  system,  and  it  cannot  incur  the  rebuke  of 
those,  who  respect  the  proper  authority  of  the  States,  while  they 
may  not  yet  rank  them  as  sovereignties.”  ^ 

In  accordance  with  the  directions  of  the  Legislature,  therefore. 
Governor  Kent,  September  10,  1838,  appointed  John  G.  Deane, 
Milford  P.  Norton  and  James  Irish  commissioners  for  ascertain- 
ing, running  and  locating  the  northeastern  boundary.  Mr.  Deane 
for  many  years  had  given  much  time  and  study  to  boundary  ques- 
tions. He  was  the  author  of  the  very  able  legislative  report  of 
1828,  to  which  reference  was  made  in  a preceding  chapter,  and 
was  especially  well  qualified  for  the  service  that  was  required 
of  the  commission  in  securing  a personal  examination  of  the 
boundary  line  as  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  commis- 
sioners were  empowered  to  employ  a suitable  number  of  com- 
petent men  to  act  as  assistants,  and  were  instructed,  after  all 
preliminary  arrangements  had  been  made,  to  proceed  on  the  due 
north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  towards  the 
height  of  land  where  is  to  be  found  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia  as  claimed  by  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Maine. 
When  they  had  reached  that  height  of  land  which  divides  those 

'^Appendix  to  the  Governor' s Plessage,  Januar}-  2,  1839,  No.  16,  71,  72. 


OTHER  SURVEYS. 


249 


rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  river  St.  L,awrence  from 
those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  they  were  to  explore  the 
northern  boundary  line  as  far  as  practicable  so  as  to  be  certain 
that  they  had  passed  over  “the  spot  where  a minutely  accurate 
and  scientific  survey  of  the  due  north  line  will  fix  the  said  North 
West  Angle  of  Nova  Scotia.”  The  leading  object  of  the  work  of 
exploration  was  “to  ascertain,  by  actual  examination  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth,  the  practicability  of  running  and  locating  a due 
north  line  according  to  the  treaty  and  our  claim,  and  to  furnish  a 
topographical  report  of  the  country,  particularly  about  the  north- 
west angle  of  Nova  Scotia.”  ^ 

The  commissioners,  September  13,  1838,  met  Governor  Kent  in 
Bangor.  After  a full  and  deliberate  joint  consideration  of  the 
best  and  most  practicable  way  of  accomplishing  the  purposes  of 
the  commission  as  indicated  in  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  the 
commissioners  concurred  in  the  opinion  that  the  only  measure 
that  could  be  attempted  that  season  with  any  reasonable  prospect 
of  success  was  an  examination  and  exploration  of  the  region 
about  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  and,  as  time  allowed,  a 
review  of  that  part  of  the  line  of  exploration  run  by  the  surveyors 
employed  by  the  American  commissioners  under  the  provisions  of 
the  treaty  of  Ghent  in  1817  and  1818,  preliminary  to  the  com- 
mencement of  running  and  locating  a meridian  line  from  the 
monument  at  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River.  A consideration 
that  had  great  weight  with  the  commissioners  in  adopting  this 
course  was  the  fact  that  representatives  of  the  British  government 
had  so  long  positively  and  persistently  asserted  that  no  “high- 
lands” could  be  found  dividing  the  waters  running  into  the  St. 
Lawrence  River  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
answering  in  character  and  location  to  the  highlands  described  in 
the  treaty  of  1783;  and  especially  as  even  the  government  of  the 
United  States  seemed  to  entertain  doubts  as  to  the  existence  of 
these  “highlands”  in  the  direction  of  a due  north  line  from  the 
monument  at  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River.  Of  course,  in 

^Appendix  to  the  Governor' s Messsage,  January  2,  1839,  No.  19,  90,  91. 


250 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


entering  upon  this  service  in  northern  Maine  in  the  closing  season 
of  the  year,  the  commissioners  did  not  expect  that  anything  more 
would  be  accomplished  than  a cursory  examination  of  the  face  of 
the  disputed  territory  by  a party  of  intelligent  observers,  attended 
by  a professional  surveyor  appointed  by  the  governor. 

From  Bangor,  the  commissioners’  assistants,  with  the  provis- 
ions for  the  whole  party,  proceeded  up  the  Penobscot  and  Sebois 
rivers,  whence  they  “carried”  over  into  the  Aroostook  River  and 
descended  it  to  the  Little  Machias  River.  Two  of  the  commis- 
sioners, and  Captain  William  P.  Parrott,  the  surveyor,  went  by 
way  of  the  Aroostook  River,  and  the  other  commissioner  by  way 
of  Moosehead  Lake,  the  Penobscot  and  Allagash  rivers.  From 
the  Aroostook  River  one  commissioner  and  seven  of  the  men  pro- 
ceeded by  way  of  the  Little  Machias  and  Fish  rivers;  one  com- 
missioner and  the  surveyor  descended  the  Aroostook.  All  were 
to  meet  at  the  mouth  of  Grand  River,  the  first  river  falling  into 
the  river  St.  John  from  the  north,  westward  of  the  exploring  line 
and  twelve  or  thirteen  miles  from  it.  The  party  arriving  first 
was  to  ascend  the  Grand  River  without  delay,  and  the  others 
were  to  follow  in  succession  promptly  as  they  arrived.  The  first 
party,  in  ascending  Grand  River,  left  marks  and  directions  at 
various  places  by  the  river,  at  the  portages  and  on  the  line.  In 
this  way  the  commissioners,  surveyor,  laborers  and  three  Indians, 
fifteen  in  all,  arrived  at  the  “highlands,”  near  Metis  River,  which 
empties  into  the  St.  Lawrence.  There  three  parties  were  formed. 
One  explored  the  “highlands”  and  streams  in  various  directions. 
Another  explored  and  surveyed  westwardly  along  the  height  of 
land  forming  the  watershed.  The  third  party,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Surveyor  Parrott,  took  various  observations  to  ascertain 
the  longitude  of  the  exploring  line  and  to  determine  the  magnetic 
variation;  also  a vertical  survey  was  made  south  on  the  line  to 
ascertain  the  elevation. 

The  land  at  the  northern  part  of  the  exploring  line  was  found 
to  be  sufficiently  high  to  divide  the  rivers  emptying  into  the  St. 
Lawrence  from  those  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  according 


OTHER  SURVEYS. 


251 


to  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  From  the  Metis,  where  it 
is  intersected  by  the  exploring  line  (called  by  the  surveyors  under 
the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  Beaver  Stream),  the  land 
rises  more  than  three  hundred  feet  within  about  one  mile  south  of 
it  on  the  exploring  line.^  The  land  in  this  region  is  very  high, 
in  large  swells  and  mountainous  ridges.  Between  the  Metis  and 
Katawamkedgewic,  or  the  Great  Forks,  is  the  highest  land  found 
on  the  whole  exploring  line  north  of  the  monument.  This  was 
also  the  estimate  of  the  surveyors  under  the  fifth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Ghent.  The  Metis  was  found  to  be  five  hundred  and 
thirty  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Katawamkedgewic  or  Grand 
Forks  where  the  line  crosses  it,  and  in  a distance  of  about  fourteen 
and  a half  miles.  “Within  about  one  mile  south  from  the  Metis, 
on  the  exploring  line,  the  land  rises  to  an  elevation  of  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty  feet  above  its  level,  and  this  is  the  spot  where  the 
rivers  are  divided,  and  where  the  North  West  Angle  of  Nova 
Scotia  is  to  be  found.”  ^ 

The  Metis  River  limited  the  explorations  of  the  party  north- 
ward. Southward  the  line  was  followed  towards  the  monument, 
and  the  report  closes  an  interesting  account  of  the  observations 
made  with  these  words;  “it  is  difiicult  to  imagine  a more  certain 
and  accurate  description  of  boundaries  than  that  contained  in  the 
treaty  of  1783,  or  which,  with  more  certainty,  can  be  applied  on 
the  earth’s  surface.  Its  monuments  are  as  fixed  and  certain  as 
the  pole  and  the  everlasting  hills.”  ® 

In  his  message,  January  2,  1839,  referring  to  the  commission- 
ers’ report.  Governor  Kent*  called  attention  to  the  value  of  the 

'^Appendix  to  the  Governor' s Message,  January  2,  1839,  No.  19,  96. 

2lb.,  97. 

^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
IV,  118.  The  whole  report,  largely  in  Mr.  Deane’s  handwriting,  covers 
pages  107-134.  The  report  of  the  surveyor  follows  that  of  the  commission, 
137-143. 

^ This  message  was  delivered  at  the  close  of  his  service  as  governor,  it  being 
his  duty,  according  to  the  constitution,  “to  give  the  Legislature  from  time  to 
time  information  of  the  condition  of  the  State.” 


252 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


large  and  correct  map  of  the  northern  part  of  Maine  and  of  the 
southern  portion  of  Canada,  prepared  by  Mr.  Parrott,  the  sur- 
veyor; both  the  report  and  map  exhibiting  the  true  character  of 
the  country  and  leaving  little  or  nothing,  illustrative  of  it,  to  be 
desired.* 

This  action  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  instituting  a new  and 
independent  survey  of  a part  of  the  boundary  line  in  dispute,  not 
unnoticed  on  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  was  followed  in  1839  by 
an  arrangement  of  the  British  government  for  an  independent 
survey  of  a part  of  the  disputed  boundary.  Information  of  this 
action  was  communicated  by  Lord  Palmerston  in  a note,  July  9, 
1839,  to  the  British  minister  in  Washington.  “As  it  appears,’’ 
he  wrote,  “by  dispatches  lately  received  from  you  that  the  nego- 
tiation now  pending  between  her  Majesty’s  government  and  the 
government  of  the  United  States  for  the  appointment  of  a joint 
commission  of  exploration  and  survey  is  not  likely  to  be  brought 
to  a termination  till  the  latter  part  of  the  present  year,  her  Majes- 
ty’s government  hav'e  thought  that  advantage  ought  to  be  taken 
of  the  present  summer,  in  order  to  obtain  as  accurate  a knowledge 
as  possible  of  the  nature  and  configuration  of  the  territory  in  dis- 
pute; and  her  Majesty’s  government  have  accordingly  determined 
to  send  out  immediately  competent  persons  to  examine  and  survey 
that  district,  and  to  make  a report  thereof  for  the  information  of 
her  Majesty’s  government.  Lieutenant  Colonel  Mudge,  of  the 
Royal  Engineers  and  Mr.  Featherstonhaugh,  have  been  appointed 
for  this  service,  and  will  be  accompanied  by  five  or  six  persons  to 
assist  them  in  their  operations.  I have  to  direct  you  to  make 
known  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  the  nature  of  the 
service  upon  which  these  gentlemen  are  about  to  be  employed.”" 

On  July  30th,  Mr.  Fox,  the  British  minister,  informed  Mr. 
"Vail,  the  acting  secretary  of  state,  not  only  of  the  appointment  of 
Messrs.  Mudge  and  Featherstonhaugh  as  commissioners  for  the 
purpose  mentioned  in  Lord  Palmerston’s  communication,  but  also 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  1839,  144. 

'‘■Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  56. 


OTHER  SURVEYS. 


253 


of  their  arrival  at  New  York  on  the  28th,  and  that  they  would 
proceed  forthwith  to  the  disputed  territory  for  the  performance 
of  the  duty  assigned  to  them. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  this  new  British  survey  was  called 
for  by  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  Maine  to  get  the  government  of 
the  United  States  to  undertake  such  a work,  or  by  the  survey  and 
exploration  undertaken  by  the  State  of  Maine  because  of  the 
failure  of  the  government  to  make  provision  for  such  a work;  but 
Messrs.  Mudge  and  Featherstonhaugh  seem  rather  to  have  become 
interested  in  boundary  service  not  because  the  British  government 
wished  to  use  them,  but  because  they  had  asked  to  be  sent  to  the 
boundary  country  on  account  of  a discovery  of  certain  designated 
inaccuracies  in  an  American  translation  of  the  Latin  description 
of  the  boundary  of  the  grant  of  Nova  Scotia  to  Sir  William  Alex- 
ander, and  represented  by  them  to  be  so  defective  as  “to  obscure 
the  nature  of  the  claim  which  her  Majesty’s  government  is 
interested  to  maintain.”  Messrs.  Featherstonhaugh  and  Mudge 
attached  great  importance  to  this  discovery.  “We  have  discov- 
ered,” they  said,  “by  a critical  examination  of  the  grant  of  Nova 
Scotia,  1621,  in  the  original  Latin,  that  the  language  which 
describes  the  western  boundary  of  the  territory  included  in  that 
grant,  and  which  boundarj^  was  agreed,  at  the  time  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  to  be  the  eastern  boundary  of  Massachusetts  in  con- 
formity with  the  provision  contained  in  the  charter  of  Massachu- 
setts of  1691,  is  susceptible  of  a new  interpretation,  varying  in 
important  particulars  from  the  received  one;  and  we  show  by  a 
literal  translation  of  the  Latin,  that  the  boundary  was  intended 
to  run  from  the  most  western  waters  of  the  St.  Croix  to  the 
sources  of  the  Chaudiere;  a line,  which  it  has  been  seen,  coin- 
cides in  a very  striking  manner  with  the  boundary  in  the  Sieur  de 
Monts  grant  of  1613.”^  The  reader  would  be  wearied  by  any 
attempt  here  to  follow  the  authors  in  their  account  of  this  new 
interpretation  in  their  endeavor  to  find  a starting  point  from 

1 Gallatin,  The  Right  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Not  theastern 
Bou?idary,  1840,  143,  144,  166,  167. 


254 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


which  to  trace  the  “highlands”  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  As  to 
those  “highlands”  they  admitted  that  there  were  “various  lines 
of  what  have  been  continuous  ridges,  leaving  only  peaks  at  great 
distances  from  each  other;”  but  within  what  they  regarded  as 
the  acknowledged  boundaries  of  the  United  States  they  mentioned 
only  one  “as  extending  from  the  Bald  Mountains  to  the  Katah- 
din,”  and  which  they  said  was  connected  with  Mars  Hill.  Many 
others,  they  thought,  might  probably  be  found,  but  they  took 
only  two  into  consideration.  The  Green  Mountains,  which  run 
from  south  to  north  between  the  Hudson  and  Connecticut  rivers, 
divide  into  two  branches  on  reaching  the  forty-fourth  degree  of 
north  latitude.  The  southern  branch,  holding  its  course  north- 
easterly, separates  the  head  waters  of  the  Chaudiere  from  those  of 
the  Connecticut,  the  Kennebec  and  the  western  branches  of  the 
Penobscot.  This  was  the  ridge  described  by  Pownall,  and  desig- 
nated in  the  proclamation  of  1763.  Toward  the  east,  though  at  a 
less  elevation,  it  still  formed  a part  of  what  they  call  “the  axis  of 
maximum  elevation,”  while  from  Nictor  Lake  the  ridge  again 
rises  towards  Bay  Chaleurs  to  the  height  of  two  thousand  feet; 
and  they  conclude:  “We  therefore  present  this  axis  of  maximum 
elevation  of  the  whole  country  as  the  true  highlands  intended  by 
the  second  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  uniting  to  the  character 
of  ‘highlands,’  as  contradistinguished  from  lowlands,  the  condi- 
tion required  by  the  treaty,  of  dividing  the  rivers  that  empty 
themselves  into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  flow  into  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  to  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut 
river.”  ^ 

But  the  “highlands”  of  Messrs.  Mudge  and  Featherstonhaugh, 
instead  of  dividing  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  St. 
Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  do  not,  in 
a straight  line  for  more  than  two  hundred  miles,  divide  the  tribu- 
tary streams  of  the  St.  Lawrence  from  any  river  whatever.  The 
sources  of  those  streams,  from  the  source  of  the  Chaudiere,  do  not 

1 Gallatin,  The  Right  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Northeastern 
Boundary , 1840,  150,  151. 


OTHER  SURVEYS. 


255 


touch  those  dividing  highlands  in  their  northeastwardly  course 
for  the  whole  of  that  distance,  and  do  not  approach  them  nearer 
than  one  hundred  miles  for  a considerable  portion  of  the  line 
of  those  highlands.  Indeed,  instead  of  dividing  the  waters  of 
streams  flowing  into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  the  rivers  that  fall 
into  the  Atlantic,  according  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  they  do  not 
“divide,  intersect,  or  touch  any  other  rivers  than  the  St.  John 
and  the  tributary  streams  of  that  river,  or  of  those  which  fall  into 
the  Bay  of  Chaleurs.’’  In  fact,  this  new  line,  based  on  a new 
discovery,  differed  only  slightly  from  that  traced  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  in  1827.^ 

In  a speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  April  6 and  7, 
1846,  Mr.  Webster,  referring  to  this  survey  of  Messrs.  Mudge 
and  Featherstonhaugh,  and  its  remarkable  conclusions,  said;  “A 
most  extraordinary  report  it  was.  These  gentlemen  had  discov- 
ered that  up  to  that  time  nobody  had  been  right.  They  invented 
a new  line  of  highlands,  cutting  across  the  waters  of  the  Aroos- 
took and  other  streams  emptying  into  the  St.  John,  which,  in 
every  previous  examination  and  exploration,  had  escaped  all 
mortal  eyes.” 

Of  the  explorations  and  surveys  thus  undertaken,  it  cannot  be 
said  that  either  added  any  information  of  value  not  already  in  the 
possession  of  the  governments  of  the  two  countries.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  end  sought  by  Great  Britain,  there  was  evi- 
dently in  this  country  a strong  and  increasing  desire  that  a more 
determined  effort  should  be  made  to  run  the  boundary  line 
described  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  that  the  commencement  of 
such  an  effort  should  be  made  by  an  exploration  and  survey  in 

^Gallatin,  The  Right  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Northeastern 
Boundary , 1840,  151,  152.  Early  printed  copies  of  the  report  and  map  made 
by  Colonel  Mudge  and  Mr.  Featherstonhaugh  were  transmitted  to  the  secre- 
tary of  state  of  the  United  States.  See  Mr.  Fox’s  letter  of  June  22,  1840. 
Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  595. 

^The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.  Boston,  Uittle  & Brown,  1851,  91,  92. 


256 


MAINE;  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  disputed  territory.  With  this  end  in  view,  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  made  an  appropriation  of  $25,000.^ 

But  this  action,  important  as  it  was,  did  not  fully  meet  the 
desires  of  the  people  of  Maine.  It  looked  more  like  procrastina- 
tion than  a vigorous,  resolute  movement  on  the  part  of  the  gen- 
eral government  to  bring  the  boundary  controversy  to  an  end. 
Governor  Fairfield,  who  succeeded  Governor  Kent  in  January, 
1839,  expressed  disappointment  and  even  dissatisfaction  with 
such  a limitation  of  effort.  In  his  annual  message,  January  4th, 
he  made  it  very  plain  that  the  present  state  of  things  could  not 
continue  much  longer.  “A  struggle  of  arms  is  but  a poor 
arbiter  of  right  between  contending  parties,  and  is  a calamity 
too  dreadful  to  be  lightly  hazarded.  But  there  is  a point  beyond 
which  forbearance  would  be  more  than  pusillanimity.  It  would 
be  dishonoring  our  noble  ancestry,  and  committing  treason  against 
those  who  succeed  us.  The  general  government  must  soon  feel 
it  to  be  its  unavoidable  duty  to  insist  upon  a termination  of  this 
question — peaceably  if  possible,  but  at  all  events,  and  at  all  haz- 
ards, to  see  it  terminated.”  Encouragement,  however,  the  gov- 
ernor found  in  the  attitude  of  Congress  with  reference  to  Maine’s 
position  ; and  he  assured  the  members  of  the  Eegislature  of  his 
hearty  co-operation  in  whatever  course  they  should  adopt  to 
secure  to  Maine  her  rights.  If  circumstances  required,  he  would 
further  communicate  with  them.*  Such  further  communication 
soon  followed. 

^In  accordance  with  this  action,  James  Renwick,  James  D.  Graham  and  A. 
Talcott,  appointed  commissioners,  were  instructed  to  prosecute  the  work  of 
exploration  and  survey.  For  the  completion  of  the  work  Congress  made  an 
added  appropriation  of  $75,000  in  February,  1841. 

"^Civil  Gove^'nment  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  19,  20. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  Aroostook  War. 

j^iHILE  boundary  matters  thus  remained  unsettled,  the  ear- 
J lier  exhortations  for  the  exercise  of  forbearance  on  the 
part  of  the  representatives  of  the  two  countries  in  the 
disputed  territory  became  less  and  less  forceful.  With 
the  increase  of  population,  alike  in  Maine  and  New  Brunswick, 
both  parties  were  increasingly  in  evidence,  and,  as  their  interests 
were  divergent,  clashings  naturally  followed. 

Mr.  S.  S.  Whipple,  who  had  received  an  appointment  as  surveyor 
general  of  the  State  of  Maine,  proceeded  in  the  summer  of  1838 
to  the  valley  of  the  Aroostook  River  with  a party  of  assistants, 
and  was  employed  in  the  duties  of  his  office  in  territory  that  had 
long  been  regarded  as  clearly  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of 
Maine. ^ June  27,  1838,  Mr.  James  MacEauchlan,  a New  Bruns- 
wick official  bearing  the  title  ‘ ‘Warden  of  the  Disputed  Territory,  ’ ’ 
addressed  a note  to  Mr.  Whipple,  informing  him  that  his  work 
appeared  to  be  “in  violation  of  the  existing  arrangement  subsist- 
ing between  the  British  government  and  that  of  the  United  States,  ’ ’ 
adding  that  his  instructions  made  it  his  duty  “to  protest  against 
any  act  implying  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  any 
government  or  state,  or  of  the  subjects  of  any  government  or  state, 
exercised  within  the  territory  in  dispute  betwixt  the  two  govern- 
ments of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  and  knowm  by  the 
name  of  the  ‘Disputed  Territory.’  ” He  accordingly  warned  Mr. 
Whipple  to  desist  from  further  proceedings  until  the  right  to  that 

^The  only  United  States  troops  in  Maine  at  this  time  were  three  compan- 
ies, or  one  hundred  and  eighteen  officers  and  men,  of  the  first  regiment 
of  artillery,  at  Houlton.  Senate  Dociitnent  No.  35 , 25th  Congress,  Third 
Session,  16. 


17 


258 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


territory  had  been  decided  by  negotiation  on  the  part  of  the  two 
governments.^ 

In  reply,  Mr.  Whipple  informed  Mr.  MacLauchlan  that  he  was 
acting,  under  the  authority  and  by  the  command  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State  of  Maine,  as  a surveyor;  but  as  to  the  location 
of  settlers  in  the  territory  he  had  no  further  agency  than  to  note 
the  claims  of  different  persons  to  certain  tracts  of  land,  making  a 
return  of  the  same  to  the  land  office  in  Bangor.^  There  the 
matter  seems  to  have  rested.  Complaints,  however,  with  refer- 
ence to  encroachments  upon  timber  lands  within  what  was 
regarded  as  Maine  territory  continued  to  reach  the  authorities  of 
Maine  and  Massachusetts,  and  on  December  14,  1838,  the  land 
agents  of  both  states  sent  George  W.  Buckmore  to  the  Aroostook 
and  Fish  rivers  with  instructions  to  obtain  information  as  to  the 
extent  of  these  depredations  and  such  other  facts  as  might  come 
under  his  observation  in  boundary  concerns. 

On  Mr.  Buckmore’s  return,  Governor  Fairfield,  in  a confiden- 
tial message,  January  23,  1839,  communicated  to  the  Legislature 
the  information  which  the  messenger  had  secured.  A large  num- 
ber of  men,  he  said,  many  of  them  from  the  British  province  as 
reported,  were  trespassing  extensively  upon  the  lands  belonging 
to  the  state,  and  they  not  only  refused  to  desist,  but  defied  the 
state  authorities  to  prevent  them  from  cutting  timber  to  any 
extent  they  wished.  From  forty  to  fifty  men  were  at  work  on  the 
Grand  River,  from  twenty  to  thirty  on  the  Green  River,  and  on 
the  Fish  River  from  fifty  to  seventy-five.  The  latter  had  with 
them  sixteen  yoke  of  oxen,  ten  pair  of  horses,  and  more  were 
expected  daily.  On  township  H ten  men  were  at  work  with  six 
oxen  and  two  horses.  Seventy-five  men,  twenty  yoke  of  oxen 
and  ten  horses  were  found  on  the  Little  Madawaska  River,  and 
at  Aroostook  Falls  fifteen  men  with  six  yoke  of  oxen.  The  value 
of  the  timber  which  would  be  cut  that  winter  by  these  trespassers 
was  estimated  at  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

'^Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library, 
IV,  41,  42. 

^Ib.,  State  Library,  IV,  43. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


259 


“These  facts,  it  seems  to  me,”  added  the  governor,  “present  a 
case  in  which  not  merely  the  property,  but  the  character  of  the 
State,  is  clearly  involved.  The  supremacy  of  law,  as  well  as  the 
sanctity  of  right,  cannot  be  thus  contemned  and  set  at  nought 
with  impunity  without  impairing  the  general  authority  of  the 
government  and  inviting  renewed  aggressions  on  the  part  of  dar- 
ing and  lawless  men.  Conduct  so  outrageous  and  high-handed, 
as  that  exhibited  by  these  reckless  depredators  upon  the  public 
property,  calls  for  the  most  prompt  and  vigorous  action  of  the 
government.”  ^ The  governor  accordingly  recommended  that  the 
land  agent  be  instructed  to  proceed  at  once  to  the  place  of  opera- 
tion on  the  Aroostook  and  Fish  rivers,  with  men  suitably  equipped 
to  seize  the  teams  and  provisions,  break  up  the  camps,  and  dis- 
perse those  who  were  engaged  in  the  work  of  devastation  and 
pillage. 

The  Legislature  took  action  on  the  same  day,  directing  the  land 
agent  to  employ  forthwith  a sufficient  force  to  arrest,  detain  and 
imprison  all  persons  found  trespassing  on  the  territory  of  Maine, 
bounded  and  established  by  the  treaty  of  1783;  and  the  sum  of  ten 
thousand  dollars  was  appropriated  for  the  purposes  mentioned.^ 

Under  this  action  of  the  Legislature  the  land  agent,  Rufus 
Mclntire  of  Parsonsfield,  with  Major  Hastings  Strickland  of  Ban- 
gor, sheriff  of  Penobscot  County,  and  about  two  hundred  men, 
proceeded  early  in  February  to  the  Aroostook  country.®  A few 
days  later  they  captured  about  twenty  men  who  had  been  lumber- 
ing farther  up  the  river,  also  James  MacLauchlan  (already  men- 
tioned as  “Warden  of  the  Disputed  Territory”)  and  Captain 
V Tibbets,  of  the  Tobique  settlement,  sending  the  last  mentioned  to 
Bangor.  In  the  night  of  February  12th,  at  a house  where  Mr. 
Mclntire  was  spending  the  night,  about  fifty  of  the  trespassers 
arrested  the  land  agent,  also  two  citizens  of  Bangor, ‘ and  sent 

^ Civil  Government  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  148,  149. 

2lb.,  1839,  32. 

® In  this  party  were  Captain  Stover  Rines  and  his  company  from  Old  Town. 

^Gustavus  G.  Cushman  and  Thomas  B.  Bartlett. 


260 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


them  to  Fredericton,  where  they  were  lodged  in  jail.^  Colonel 
Ebenezer  Webster,  of  Orono,  was  in  Woodstock,  New  Brunswick, 
on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Mclntire  and  the  other  prisoners,  and  en- 
deavored to  secure  their  release.  Not  only  was  he  unsuccessful, 
but  his  efforts  led  to  his  own  arrest  and  he  was  sent  to  Frederic- 
ton with  the  other  prisoners  and  committed  to  jail.^ 

Information  concerning  the  arrest  of  the  land  agent  and  other 
citizens  of  Bangor  was  promptly  carried  to  that  important  and 
busy  community  on  the  Penobscot,  and  soon  reached  all  other 
parts  of  Maine,  causing  great  excitement  and  awakening  feelings 
of  deep  indignation.  Governor  Fairfield,  February  15th,  in  a 
special  message,  conveyed  to  the  Legislature  the  information  he 
had  received  from  the  border.  The  company  that  arrested  the 
land  agent,  he  said,  was  at  No.  10  on  the  Aroostook,  fortified, 
and  anticipating  an  attack  in  case  any  attempt  should  be  made  by 
the  Maine  civil  posse  to  execute  the  recent  legislative  action  with 
reference  to  timber  encroachments.  He  accordingly  advised  send- 
ing a reinforcement  of  three  hundred  men  to  the  Aroostook  coun- 
try, and  asked  authority  to  appoint  temporarily  a land  agent  in 
place  of  Mr.  Mclntire  “to  lead  on  the  expedition.”  The  author- 
ity was  granted,  and  Mr.  Charles  Jarvis  received  the  appointment.^ 

Three  days  later  the  governor  hastened  a second  message  to  the 
Legislature  with  reference  to  border  concerns.  A proclamation,^ 
issued  by  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick  February 
13th,  had  come  into  his  hand,  stating  that  a party  of  armed  per- 
sons, to  the  number  of  two  hundred  or  more,  had  “invaded  a 
portion  of  this  province,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  her  Majesty’s 

^Civil  Government  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  151. 

‘^Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  76. 

^Civil  Government  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  151,  152.  Mr.  Jarvis  joined 
the  land  agent’s  party  at  what  is  now  Fort  Fairfield  on  February  23rd.  There 
he  found  ten  or  twelve  companies  with  company  commanders,  but  no  officer 
of  higher  rank.  The  next  morning  he  placed  Captain  Joseph  Porter  in  com- 
mand with  the  rank  of  colonel,  but  under  his  direction.  Bangor  Historical 
Magazine,  II,  123. 

*House  Document  No.  222,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  13. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


261 


government,  from  the  neighboring  State  of  Maine,  for  the  pro- 
fessed object  of  exercising  authority,  and  driving  off  persons 
stated  to  be  cutting  timber  therein.”  The  governor  recalled  the 
circumstances  connected  with  this  movement  of  the  land  agent’s 
posse,  designated  by  the  lieutenant  governor  as  an  “invasion”  and 
“outrage,”  and  asked,  “Could  a greater  indignity  be  offered  to 
any  people  having  a particle  of  sensibility  to  its  rights  and  its 
honor,  or  to  the  sacredness  of  the  personal  liberty  of  its  citizens  ? 

How  long  are  we  thus  to  be  trampled  upon — our  rights 

and  claims  derided — our  power  contemned — and  the  State  degrad- 
ed?” What  the  governor  had  done,  under  these  circumstances, 
was  mentioned.  He  had  hastened  the  departure  of  the  reinforce- 
ments then  assembled  at  Bangor  awaiting  orders;  and  he  had 
issued  an  order  to  Major  General  Hodsdon,  commanding  the  third 
division  of  militia,  to  detach  one  thousand  men  by  draft  or  other- 
wise to  rendezvous  at  Bangor  properly  officered  and  equipped, 
ready  to  proceed  at  the  earliest  possible  moment  to  the  place  occu- 
pied by  the  land  agent’s  party,  there  to  render  such  aid  as  would 
enable  the  land  agent  to  carry  into  effect  the  resolve  of  January 
24th. ^ The  Legislature  gave  the  governor  prompt  support  by  the 
following  action: 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  honor  and  interest  of  this  state  demand  that  a suffi- 
cient military  force  be  forthwith  stationed  at  the  Aroostook  River  west  of 
the  boundary  line  of  the  state  as  established  by  the  treaty  of  1783;  and  on  the 
river  St.  John,  if  found  practicable,  at  such  points  as  may  be  best  adapted  to 
the  object,  to  prevent  further  depredations  on  the  public  lands,  and  to  pro- 
tect and  preserve  the  timber  and  other  lumber  already  cut  there  by  trespass- 
ers, and  to  prevent  its  removal  without  the  limits  of  the  State. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  sum  of  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars  be  and  hereby 
is  appropriated  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  executive  to  carry  out  the 
purposes  of  the  foregoing  resolve,  and  the  resolve  passed  [approved]  January 
24,  1839.  And  that  the  governor  be  and  hereby  is  authorized,  wdth  the  advice 
of  the  council,  to  draw  his  warrant  for  the  same  from  time  to  time  as  it  may 
be  needed  for  that  purpose. 

In  a postscript  Governor  Fairfield  informed  the  Legislature  that 

^Civil  Govertiinent  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  152-154. 

Gb.,  1839,  42. 


262 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


since  writing  his  message  he  had  received  another  communication 
from  Lieutenant  Governor  Harvey,  in  which  the  latter  called  atten- 
tion to  an  alleged  agreement  by  which  the  British  government 
was  to  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  and  possession  of  the  disputed 
territory,  and  urged  the  withdrawal  of  the  land  agent’s  party, 
stating  that  he  had  directed  a strong  force  of  troops  to  be  in  readi- 
ness to  support  her  Majesty’s  authority  in  the  disputed  territory. 
“No  such  agreement  as  that  alluded  to  by  the  lieutenant  governor 
can  be  recognized  by  us,”  said  Governor  Fairfield;  “it  is  an 
entire  misapprehension,  to  say  the  least,  that  such  an  agreement 
has  ever  been  made.”  ^ 

The  governor’s  message  and  his  report  of  this  added  communi- 
cation from  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Brunswick,  together 
with  the  report  of  the  action  of  the  Maine  Legislature,  found  their 
way  at  once  into  every  part  of  the  state.  No  declaration  of  war 
could  have  stirred  more  deeply  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  Maine. 
The  spirit  of  ’76  was  again  abroad.  The  state  was  being  despoiled 
of  its  valuable  timber  by  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  and  those 
in  the  service  of  the  state  who  had  resisted  such  intrusion  had 
been  seized  and  hurried  to  imprisonment  in  a British  jail.  The 
humorous  side  of  the  Aroostook  war,  as  a bloodless  war,  appeared 
later.  Now,  in  the  lines  of  a lyric  of  that  time,  the  cry  was, 

“Bring  out  the  big  gun  made  of  brass. 

Which  forges  July  thunder; 

Bring  out  the  flag  of  Bennington, 

And  strike  the  foe  with  wonder.” 

Thus  summoned,  men  hurried  toward  the  border.  It  was  mid- 
winter, and  only  wood  roads  ^ through  the  forest  for  lumbering 
purposes  led  thither.  First  came  the  hardy  lumbermen,  leaving 
their  axes  and  their  logging  camps  and  hurrying  to  the  support  of 
the  land  agent’s  party  on  the  Aroostook.  Following  them  came 
other  volunteers  from  towns,  hamlets  and  farms,  men  and  boys, 

^Civil  Government  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  154,  155. 

^ There  was  at  this  time  a good  road  between  Bangor  and  Houlton  con- 
structed by  the  United  States  quartermaster’s  department,  but  it  ended  there. 
Senate  Document  No.  35,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  13. 


Fort  Fairfietd 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


263 


armed  with  such  weapons  as  could  at  once  be  secured,  some  of 
them  with  muskets  used  by  men  from  Maine  on  the  battle  fields  of 
the  Revolution  and  were  with  Washington  at  Valley  Forge,  or 
with  Pepperrell  in  the  capture  of  Rouisburg  in  1745.  Rater,  came 
the  one  thousand  drafted  men  called  out  by  the  governor’s  order 
of  February  16th.  On  February  19th,  Adjutant  General  Thomp- 
son declared  an  added  draft  of  ten  thousand,  three  hundred  and 
forty-three  officers  and  men,  including  field  and  staff  officers,  and 
directing  them  to  hold  themselves,  fully  armed  and  equipped, 
ready  for  an  immediate  call  into  the  service  of  the  state. ^ This 
louder  call  was  answered  by  an  uprising  not  unlike  that  witnessed 
in  all  parts  of  Maine  a little  more  than  a score  of  years  later  at  the 
opening  of  the  Civil  War. 

On  the  21st  of  February,  Governor  Fairfield  was  able  to  inform 
the  Legislature  that  reinforcements  had  already  reached  the  pro- 
visional land  agent’s  party  on  the  Aroostook  River,  and  that  the 
draft  of  one  thousand  militia  had  also  arrived  at  the  designated 
place  of  rendezvous.  Other  military  movements  were  in  progress. 
The  governor  also  stated  that,  having  learned  from  Sir  John  Harvey 
that  Mr.  Mclntire  and  his  fellow  prisoners  had  been  released  on 
parole,  pending  a reference  of  the  case  to  the  British  government, 
he  also  had  released  Mr.  MacLauchlan  and  his  assistants  on  the 
same  terms. ° On  the  following  day  the  governor  wrote  to  Presi- 
dent Van  Buren  concerning  the  threatening  conditions  that  had 
influenced  the  state  government  in  calling  out  such  large  rein- 
forcements, inclosing  correspondence  and  a copy  of  his  message  to 
the  Legislature;  ® and  the  president  on  February  26th,  in  a mes- 
sage to  Congress,  referred  to  conditions  on  the  northeastern  bound- 
ary occasioned  by  extensive  timber  depredations  undertaken  by 
New  Brunswick  trespassers  on  the  assumption  that  an  agreement 
existed  between  the  two  adjoining  nations  conceding  to  Great 

"^Historical  Sketch  and  Roster  of  the  Aroostook  War,  8,  prepared  in  tlie 
adjutant  general’s  office,  1903-1904,  and  printed  by  the  state. 

‘‘’Civil  Govertitnent  of  the  State  of  Maine,  1839,  156. 

^ Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents , III,  521,  522 


264 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Britain,  until  the  final  settlement  of  the  boundary  question,  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  over  the  territory  in  dispute.  This,  he  said,  was 
an  error.  The  voluminous  correspondence  on  this  point  had  been 
carefully  examined,  but  instead  of  sustaining  the  British  assump- 
tion it  entirely  disproved  it.  “The  State  of  Maine  had  a right  to 
arrest  the  depredations  complained  of.”  ‘ 

But  while  insisting  on  the  right  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  arrest 
“the  depredations  complained  of,”  the  president  in  his  message 
informed  the  Senate  that  he  might  find  it  proper  to  propose  to 
her  Britannic  Majesty’s  government  a temporary  arrangement  for 
the  “mutual  exercise  of  jurisdiction”  by  means  of  which  border 
troubles  would  be  avoided.^  In  fact,  among  the  papers  transmit- 
ted to  Congress  by  the  president  was  a copy  of  a memorandum, 
dated  February  27,  1839,  signed  by  the  secretary  of  state  of  the 
United  States  and  the  British  minister  in  Washington,  stating 
terms  on  which  it  was  believed  that  boundary  collisions  could  be 
avoided  consistently  with  the  claims  of  both  countries,  the  agree- 
ment having  the  force  of  a recommendation  only.  By  the  terms 
of  this  agreement  New  Brunswick  officials  were  not  to  seek  to 
expel  by  military  force  the  armed  party  of  Maine  in  the  Aroostook 
country,  while  the  government  of  Maine,  voluntarily  and  without 
delay,  was  to  withdraw,  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory, any  armed  force  at  that  time  there.'* 

A motion  having  been  made  in  the  Senate  that  these  papers, 
communicated  by  the  president,  should  be  referred  to  the  commit- 
tee on  foreign  relations,  Mr.  Williams,  of  Maine,  expressed  doubts 
with  reference  to  Maine’s  acceptance  of  such  an  agreement.  Any 
temporizing  expedient  in  the  matter,  he  said,  would  avail  little. 
If,  however,  the  agreement  should  give  opportunity  for  new  nego- 
tiations, Maine  would  not  complain.  The  time  had  come  when 
the  United  States  must  bring  the  controversy  to  an  end  by  nego- 
tiation or  otherwise.  Maine  has  her  rights  and  knows  them. 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents , III,  517,  518. 

Ub.,  Ill,  519. 

Ub.,  Ill,  526,  527. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


265 


While  she  desires  not  to  disturb  or  put  in  hazard  the  peace  of 
the  country,  she  cannot  much  longer  suffer  an  important  part 
of  her  territory  to  be  in  doubt  or  abeyance.'  While  Mr.  Ruggles  of 
Maine,  following  Mr.  Williams,  was  addressing  the  Senate,  he  was 
informed  that  there  had  been  an  actual  collision  on  the  border;  that 
a battle  had  been  fought  and  blood  spilled.  There  was  “great  sen- 
sation and  silence  in  the  Senate  for  some  moments.”  Then  Mr. 
Webster  rose.  “l  do  not  belieye,”  he  said,  “there  has  yet  been 
collision;  I hope  there  will  be  none.  But  I do  not  wish  to  see 
Maine  humiliated  or  disgraced.  I believe  that  if  something  of  her 
own  spirit  and  feeling  had  per\’aded  us  here,  we  should  have  now 
been  through  the  controversy.  There  is  yet,  I have  no  doubt, 
time  for  pacific  adjustment;  but  England  must  learn  that  she  has 
nothing  to  gain  by  delay.  Delay,  while  it  can  benefit  neither  party, 
every  day  endangers  the  ‘peace  of  both.’”^  Before  the  debate 
closed,  Mr.  Ruggles  informed  the  Senate  that  the  report  of  a col- 
lision was  unfounded. 

The  correspondence  and  documents  relating  to  conditions  on 
the  northeastern  border  were  then  referred  by  the  Senate  to  the 
committee  on  foreign  relations.  This  committee,  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  reported  a series  of  resolutions  concerning  these  boundary 
disturbances.  After  stating  in  the  first  and  second  of  these  reso- 
lutions that  the  committee  could  discover  in  the  documents  and 
correspondence  submitted  no  trace  of  any  understanding,  express, 
or  implied,  much  less  any  “explicit  agreement”  such  as  was 
alleged,  or  that  the  State  of  Maine  had  violated  the  spirit  of  any 
existing  understanding  by  sending,  under  the  authority  of  the 
Legislature,  her  land  agent,  with  a sufficient  force,  into  the  dis- 
puted territory  for  the  sole  purpose  of  expelling  lawless  tres- 
passers, the  third  resolution  added:  “That  should  her  Britannic 
Majesty’s  government,  in  violation  of  the  clear  understanding 
between  the  parties,  persist  in  carrying  its  avowed  determination 
into  execution,  and  attempt  by  military  force  to  assume  exclusive 

"^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  258. 

Mb.,  VI,  259,  260. 


266 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


jurisdiction  over  the  disputed  territory,  all  of  which,  they  firmly 
believe,  rightfully  belongs  to  the  State  of  Maine,  the  exigency,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Senate,  will  then  have  occurred,  rendering  it 
the  imperative  duty  of  the  president,  under  the  constitution  and 
the  laws,  to  call  forth  the  militia  and  employ  the  military  force  of 
the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  such  an  invasion.” 
A fourth  resolution,  on  the  other  hand,  declared,  that  should  the 
British  authorities  refrain  from  attempting  a military  occupation 
of  the  territory  in  dispute  and  from  enforcing  their  claim  to  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  over  it  by  arms,  then,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Sen- 
ate, the  State  of  Maine  ought,  on  her  part,  to  pursue  a course  of 
similar  forbearance.  Should  she  refuse  to  do  so,  and  determine 
to  settle  the  controversy  by  force,  authority  for  which  under  the 
constitution  belonged  to  the  federal  government,  there  would  be 
no  obligation  on  that  government  to  sustain  her  by  military  aid.' 

On  the  same  day,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  commit- 
tee on  foreign  relations  presented  an  extended  report,  denying, 
against  the  assertion  of  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, that  the  United  States  had  ever  consented  to  leave  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  disputed  territory  to  the  British 
authorities.  The  pretension  was  as  unreasonable  in  itself  as  it 
was  unsustained  by  any  agreement  between  the  two  governments. 
As  to  the  threatening  conditions  in  that  territory,  the  first  appeal 
to  military  force  was  made  by  New  Brunswick,  and  the  subse- 
quent proceedings  of  Maine  were  defensive  merely.  The  com- 
mittee also  submitted  a bill  giving  to  the  president  additional 
powers,  authorizing  him  to  resist  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  to  enforce  by  arms  her  claim  to  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  that  part  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  dispute  between  the  two 
countries,  and  to  employ,  for  that  purpose,  the  naval  and  military 
forces  of  the  United  States  and  such  portions  of  the  militia  as  he 
might  deem  it  advisable  to  call  into  service;  and  the  sum  of  ten 
million  dollars^  was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  president  for  the 

'^Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  229. 

2 While  the  bill  was  under  discussion  in  the  House,  Mr.  Howard  moved  to 
fill  the  blank  in  the  bill  at  this  place  by  inserting  “ten.”  Another  member 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


267 


purpose  of  carrying  the  bill  into  efiect.^  The  president  was  also 
authorized,  in  case  of  actual  invasion,  to  accept  the  services  of 
any  number  of  volunteers  not  exceeding  fifty  thousand.^ 

On  March  2nd,  when  the  House  bill  came  up  in  the  Senate  for 
action,  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  (there  having 
been  some  opposition  to  the  proposed  appropriation),  said: 
“Should  Maine  act  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  these  resolu- 
tions, then  if  war  must  come,  it  will  find  the  country  unanimous. 
On  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  it  will  be  a war  of  pure  aggression, 
waged  during  the  pendency  of  peaceful  negotiations  for  the  pur- 
pose of  assuming  exclusive  military  jurisdiction  against  the  clear 
understanding  between  the  two  governments,  over  a territory  to 
which  she  has  not  even  a color  of  title.  In  such  an  event,  the 
only  alternative  is  war  or  national  dishonor,  and  between  these 

two  what  American  hesitates  ? All  we  have  to  do  is  to 

stand  on  the  defensive,  and  exercise  forbearance  until  the  shock 
of  arms  shall  render  forbearance  no  longer  a virtue.”^  In  the 
Senate,  the  House  bill  was  passed  unanimously;  in  the  House 
there  were  201  yeas  and  six  nays.  The  attitude  and  the  action  of 
the  State  of  Maine  had  again  been  vindicated. 

When  the  House  bill  was  under  discussion,  March  1st,  Mr. 
Evans,  who  had  addressed  the  House  at  considerable  length  on 
the  day  the  president’s  message  was  received,  now  again  partici- 
pated in  the  debate,  replying  to  Mr.  Biddle,  of  Pennsylvania, 
who  had  declared  his  opposition  to  the  bill,  deprecating  “the  get- 
ting up  of  this  comparatively  immaterial  issue,  more  particularly 
as  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  we  have  on  it  a clear  and  indis- 
putable case,”  and  asking,  “What,  then,  is  our  course?  To  run 
into  a new  game  of  diplomacy  about  ‘exclusive  jurisdiction’  ? To 

moved  ‘‘twenty,”  yet  another  ‘‘five.”  The  highest  number  was  negatived, 
as  also  was  the  lowest,  and  the  blank  was  filled  with  the  word  ten,  ayes  95, 
noes  64.  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  243. 

^Ib.,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  230-232. 

^Ib.,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  244. 

®Ib. , 25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  239. 


268 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


shed  American  blood  in  an  obscure  and  senseless  contest  in  the 
Aroostook?”  In  his  reply,  Mr.  Evans  defended  the  course  of 
the  State  of  Maine  in  the  boundary  controversy,  and  asked, 
“What  will  you  do  in  the  present  exigency?  Will  you  make  no 
demonstration  in  behalf  of  our  rights?  What  can  you  then  expect 
but  that  the  most  arrogant  demands  of  Great  Britain  will  be 
renewed  and  insisted  on?  Will  you  do  nothing?  Will  you  leave 
Maine  to  herself?  Such  is  the  course  already  predicted  by  one  of 
the  British  presses  in  this  country.  The  United  States,  they  say, 
will  abandon  Maine  to  the  consequences  of  her  own  folly.  We 
are  now  to  see  how  that  is.  I have  already  told  you  that  Maine 
is  in  arms,  determined  to  maintain  her  rights.  She  is  solemnly 
pledged  on  this  subject.  She  cannot  retreat.  She  will  most  cer- 
tainly maintain  herself  in  the  position  she  has  taken.  Will  you 
stand  by,  and  see  her  cut  down?  Will  any  man  say  that  is  a 
result  which  this  nation  can  witness  without  disgrace  and  dis- 
honor?   The  question  for  you  is,  whether  she  shall  be 

left  alone  battling  for  her  rights — whether  you  think  that  is  the 
way  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country?  You  may  see  her  trod 
in  the  dust  by  military  power  which  she  cannot  resist,  if  you  will; 
you  may  see  her  cut  off  from  the  Union,  and  incorporated  with 
the  colonial  possessions  of  a foreign  power;  but  you  shall  not  see 
her  quailing  before  the  enemy,  nor  abandoning  the  high  ground 
she  occupies,  while  she  can  lift  an  arm  to  uphold  her  flag.”  * 

The  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  in  a letter  to  Governor 
Fairfield  bearing  the  same  date  as  the  memorandum  already  men- 
tioned, and  inclosing  a copy  of  the  same,  earnestly  urged  an 
acceptance  of  the  recommendation  it  contained,  stating  that  the 
president  desired  it  should  be  complied  with  by  both  the  State  of 
Maine  and  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  satisfied  that  it  was 
in  harmony  with  the  original  understanding  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain;  and  he  asked  the  governor  to  transmit 
an  inclosed  copy  of  the  memorandum  to  the  lieutenant  governor 

^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  25th  Congress,  Third  Session,  VI,  278. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


269 


of  New  Brunswick  as  soon  as  it  reached  him.^  Both  communica- 
tions were  intrusted  to  the  care  of  Major  General  Winfield  Scott, 
who  was  ordered  to  proceed  to  Maine.  Taking  leave  of  the  pres- 
ident, having  received  his  instriictions,  General  Scott  said:  “Mr. 
President,  if  you  w'ant  war,  I need  only  look  on  in  silence.  The 
Maine  people  will  make  it  for  you  fast  and  hot  enough.  I know 
them;  but  if  peace  be  your  wish,  I can  give  no  assurance  of  suc- 
cess. The  difficulties  in  the  way  will  be  formidable.”  “Peace 
with  honor,”  -was  the  president’s  reply,  and  that  being  General 
Scott’s  own  wish,  as  he  has  recorded,  he  went  on  his  mission 
“with  a hearty  good  will.” 

The  general  was  accompanied  by  Captain  Robert  Anderson, 
later,  as  Major  Anderson,  the  hero  of  Fort  Sumter,  and  Tieuten- 
ant  E.  D.  Keyes,  later  Major  General  E.  D.  Keyes,  a distinguished 
officer  in  the  Civil  War.  In  Boston,  he  had  an  interview  with 
Edward  Everett,  then  governor  of  Massachusetts. 

General  Scott,  March  5,  1839,  reached  Augusta,  the  capital  of 
the  state,  and  at  once  found  himself  in  a highly  excited  commu- 
nity. The  storm  center  was  the  Legislature,  but  he  soon  learned 
that  the  whole  state,  from  Kittery  Point  to  Quoddy  Head,  was  in 
an  excited  state  of  mind  occasioned  by  the  proposed  memorandum 
recently  received  from  the  state  department  in  Washington,  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made.  The  particular  item  in 
the  memorandum  arousing  general  hostility  was  the  recommen- 
dation that  the  State  of  Maine  should  voluntarily,  and  without 
needless  delay,  withdraw  from  the  disputed  territory  any  armed 
force  it  then  had  there,  thus  leaving  that  territory  wholly  within 
the  possession  and  jurisdiction  of  New  Brunswick.  What  this 
meant,  or  easily  could  be  made  to  mean  apart  from  other  items 
in  the  proposed  memorandum,  can  easily  be  imagined.  As  Gen- 
eral Scott  viewed  the  situation  at  no  loss  of  time  after  his  arrival, 
the  State  of  Maine  and  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick  were  very 
fast  approaching  a clash  of  arms.  Besides  its  armed  force  in  the 

^Mafiuscript  Correspondence , etc.^  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Librarj’, 
V,  241,  242. 


270 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


disputed  territory,  Maine  already  had  a considerable  body  of 
troops  in  the  Aroostook  country,  while  General  Hodsdon  had  a 
detachment  of  a thousand  men  from  the  third  division  of  Maine 
militia  on  the  way  thither;  and  ten  thousand  more  from  the  sev- 
eral divisions  of  the  state  militia  had  been  ordered  to  hold  them- 
selves in  readiness  for  service  on  the  border.  In  New  Brunswick 
warlike  preparations  also  were  in  progress. 

In  his  conversations.  General  Scott  at  once  found  that  rival 
political  interests  were  very  much  in  evidence.  A remarkable 
degree  of  unanimity  had  thus  far  characterized  the  military  prep- 
arations that  were  in  progress  throughout  the  state.  The  mem- 
bers of  both  political  parties  had  laid  aside  their  differences,  and 
were  loyally  supporting  the  state  authorities  in  their  purpose  to 
resist  encroachments  upon  Maine  territory.  But  the  more  he 
studied  the  situation  at  the  capitol.  General  Scott  found  both 
Democrats  and  Whigs  wary  lest  their  opponents  in  some  way 
should  secure  political  advantage.  In  his  endeavors  as  a peace- 
maker accordingly  he  carefully  considered  ways  of  approach,  and 
first  devoted  his  attention  to  the  Democrats,  then  the  dominant 
political  party;  and  by  degrees,  as  he  tells  us,  he  won  them  over, 
although  they  hesitated  “lest  the  Whigs  should  shift  about,  agi- 
tate against  any  compromise,  and  thereby  regain  the  state.” 

General  Scott  recorded  an  interesting  story  of  the  stategy  he 
employed  in  one  of  his  successful  advances  upon  the  leaders  of 
the  Legislature,  alluding  to  the  assistance  he  received  from  “Sen- 
ator Evans,  just  from  Washington,”  and  from  “the  Honorable 
Albert  Smith  of  Portland,  afterwards  a member  of  Congress,  who, 
happening  to  be  in  Augusta,  gave  him  the  temper  and  bias  of 
many  particular  Democrats,  whom  it  was  necessary  to  concili- 
ate.” ^ General  Scott  wrote  this  story  many  years  after  the  events 
to  which  he  referred,  and  his  memory  was  not  wholly  accurate. 
Mr.  Evans  was  not  then  a member  of  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  the  Honorable  Albert  Smith,  of  Portland,  was  the  Honorable 
F.  O.  J.  Smith,  whose  presence  in  Augusta  at  just  that  time, 

'^Memoirs  of  Lieute^iant  General  Scott,  Written  by  Himself,  344,  345. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


271 


doubtless,  was  not  altogether  a matter  of  “happening”;  but  Gen- 
eral Scott’s  account  of  the  way  in  which  he  sought  to  carry  out 
his  instructions  may  be  regarded  as  substantially  correct. 

In  his  work  as  a peacemaker  the  general  soon  found  that  the 
memorandum  must  be  set  aside  as  not  affording  a possible  basis 
for  a temporary  agreement  between  the  contending  parties  on  the 
eastern  frontier;  and  he  at  length  suggested  to  the  governor,  and 
some  prominent  members  of  the  Legislature,  the  basis  for  a com- 
promise that  had  the  promise  of  favorable  action  on  the  part  of 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House.  The  presentation  of  this  sugges- 
tion to  the  Legislature  was  left  to  Governor  Fairfield.  Accord- 
ingly, in  a special  message,  the  governor  laid  the  papers  he  had 
received  from  the  president  and  the  secretary  of  state,  including 
the  memorandum,  before  that  body.  As  to  the  memorandum,  he 
asked  instructions,  at  the  same  time  presenting  his  own  views 
with  reference  to  it.  Replying  to  the  question,  “Shall  we  with- 
draw our  forces  agreeably  to  its  recommendation?”  he  answered 
with  an  unhesitating  negative.  To  the  terms  of  the  memoran- 
dum he  saw  obvious  objections.  It  would  make  the  state’s 
action,  he  said,  a retrograde  movement.  “What  then  shall  be 
done?”  he  asked.  “The  people  of  this  State  surely  are  not  de- 
sirous of  hurrying  the  two  nations  into  a war.  Such  an  event  is 
anxiously  to  be  avoided,  if  it  can  be,  without  dishonor.  We  owe 
too  much  to  the  Union,  to  ourselves,  and  above  all  to  the  spirit 
and  principles  of  Christianity,  to  bring  about  a conflict  of  arms 
with  a nation  having  with  us  a common  origin,  speaking  a com- 
mon language,  and  bound  to  us  by  so  many  ties  of  common 
interest,  without  the  most  inexorable  necessity.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances I would  recommend  that,  when  we  are  fully  satisfied, 
either  by  the  declarations  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  of  New 
Brunswick,  or  otherwise,  that  he  has  abandoned  all  idea  of  occu- 
pying the  disputed  territory  with  a military  force,  and  of 
attempting  an  expulsion  of  our  party,  then,  the  Governor  be 
authorized  to  withdraw  our  military  force,  leaving  the  land  agent 
with  a sufl&cient  posse,  armed  or  unarmed,  as  the  case  may  require. 


272 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


sufficient  to  carry  into  effect  your  original  design,  that  of  driving 
out  or  arresting  the  trespassers,  and  preserving  and  protecting  the 
timber  from  depredations.  From  such  an  act  of  jurisdiction — an 
attempt  so  right  and  proper  in  itself,  and  so  imperatively  called 
for  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  should  not  be  driven  by 
any  power  on  earth.  We  ought  not,  however,  wantonly  to  do 
7nore  than  is  necessary.  We  want  no  military  force  in  the  terri- 
tory, if  there  be  no  military  force  against  us.”  ^ 

By  the  governor’s  message,  following  General  Scott’s  personal 
efforts  as  a peacemaker,  the  way  was  prepared  for  action  by  the 
Legislature;  and  a resolve  was  adopted  March  23,  1839,  authoriz- 
ing the  governor,  when  satisfied  that  the  lieutenant  governor  of 
New  Brunswick  had  abandoned  all  intention  of  occupying  the 
disputed  territory  with  a military  force,  to  withdraw  the  Maine 
militia,  leaving  the  land  agent  wdth  a sufficient  posse,  armed  or 
unarmed,  carrying  the  resolve  into  effect.^ 

Meanwhile  General  Scott  had  undertaken  peace  efforts  with 
Lieutenant  Governor  Harvey,  of  New  Brunswick.  In  the  war  of 
1812,  the  general  had  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  lieutenant 
governor,  then  a lieutenant  colonel  in  the  British  army  in  Canada, 
and  had  been  able  to  do  him  a kindness.  The  acquaintance 
formed  in  this  w^ay  was  continued  after  the  war,  and  it  was  now 
of  service  to  General  Scott  in  securing  Sir  John  Harvey’s  agree- 
ment to  the  proposed  arrangement.  General  Scott’s  letter  to  the 
lieutenant  governor  was  dated  “Headquarters,  Eastern  Division, * 
United  States  Army,  Augusta,  Maine,  March  21,  1839,  and  con- 
tained the  following  proposition: 

‘‘That  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  of  her  Britannic 
Majesty’s  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  under  the  expected  renewal  of  nego- 
tiations between  the  Cabinets  of  London  and  Washington,  on  the  subject  of 
the  said  disputed  territory,  without  renewed  instructions  to  that  effect  from 
his  government,  to  seek  to  take  military  possession  of  that  territory,  or  to 

^Resolves  of  Mahie,  1839,  164,  165. 

2lb.,  1839,  113,  114. 

®It  will  be  remembered  that  General  Scott’s  force,  present  for  duty,  con- 
sisted of  one  captain  and  one  lieutenant. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


273 


seek  by  military  force  to  expel  therefrom  the  armed  civil  posse  or  the  troops 
of  Maine.”  ^ 

This  proposition  received  the  assent  of  the  lieutenant  governor 
of  New  Brunswick.  In  a letter  to  General  Scott,  March  23,  1839, 
Sir  John  Harvey  wrote:  “l  was  gratified  by  the  receipt  of  your 
very  satisfactory  communication  of  the  21st  instant.  My  reliance 
upon  you,  my  dear  General,  has  led  me  to  give  my  willing  assent 
to  the  proposition  which  you  have  made  yourself  the  very  accept- 
able means  of  conveying  to  me;  and  I trust  that  as  far  as  the 
Province  and  the  State  respectively  are  concerned,  an  end  will  be 
put  by  it  to  all  border  disputes,  and  a way  opened  to  an  amicable 
settlement  of  the  national  question  involved.” 

On  the  25th  of  March,  because  of  General  Harvey’s  agreement. 
Governor  Fairfield  signified  in  the  following  words  his  acceptance 
of  the  proposition  conveyed  to  him  by  General  Scott: 

‘‘That  in  the  hope  of  a speedy  and  satisfactory  settlement,  by  negotiation, 

between  the  governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain it 

is  not  the  intention  of  the  Governor  of  Maine,  without  renewed  instructions 
from  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  to  attempt  to  disturb  by  arms  the  said 
Province  in  the  possession  of  the  Madawaska  settlement,  or  to  interrupt  the 
usual  communications  between  that  Province  and  her  Majesty’s  Upper  Prov- 
ince; and  he  is  willing,  in  the  meantime,  to  leave  the  questions  of  possession 
and  jurisdiction  as  they  at  present  stand,  that  is.  Great  Britain  holding,  in 
part,  possession  of  a part  of  the  said  territory,  and  the  government  of  Maine 
denying  her  right  to  such  possession;  and  the  State  of  Maine  holding,  in 
part,  possession  of  another  portion  of  the  same  territory,  to  which  her  right 
is  denied  by  Great  Britain.  With  this  understanding,  the  Governor  of  Maine, 
will  without  unnecessary  delay,  withdraw  the  military  force  of  the  State  from 
the  said  disputed  territory,  leaving  only,  under  a land  agent,  a small  civil 
posse,  armed  or  unarmed,  to  protect  the  timber  recently  cut  and  to  prevent 
future  depredations.”  ^ 

In  this  mutual  understanding  thus  accomplished,  the  British 
claim  of  “exclusive  jurisdiction”  in  the  disputed  territory  received 
no  recognition,  one  part  of  the  territory,  the  Aroostook  country, 

^Manuscript  Correspondence , etc.,  Northeastern  Boundary , State  Librar}-, 
IV,  327,  329,  331. 

Hb.,  State  Library,  IV,  328,  329. 


18 


274 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


remaining  in  the  possession  of  Maine,  while  another  part,  the 
Madawaska  country,  was  left  in  the  possession  of  New  Brunswick.^ 

On  March  30th,  Major  General  Hodsdon,  in  command  of  the 
state  troops  on  the  northeastern  border,  was  ordered  to  leave  one 
company  of  light  infantry,  one  company  of  riflemen  and  two  com- 
panies of  infantry,  under  command  of  a fleld  officer,  at  Fort  Fair- 
field,  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  public  property  until  a 
sufficient  civil  force  could  be  procured  by  the  land  agent;  while 
General  Hodsdon,  with  the  remaining  portion  of  the  detachment, 
was  directed  to  report  forthwith  at  Bangor,  where  the  troops  were 
discharged  on  April  26th. ^ On  April  4th  the  companies  stationed 
at  Calais  were  discharged,  while  the  companies  left  in  the  Aroos- 
took country,  relieved  by  civilians,  were  discharged  late  in  April 
or  early  in  May,  on  their  arrival  at  Bangor.  The  whole  number 
of  troops,  whose  services  were  required  for  the  protection  of  the 
border,  numbered  three  thousand,  three  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
officers  and  men,  who  were  in  the  service  from  twenty-one  days 
to  two  months  and  twenty-five  days.^  With  their  discharge  the 

^This  relinquishment  of  the  British  claim  to  exclusive  jurisdiction,  brought 
about  by  General  Scott,  and  in  accordance  with  which  the  disputed  territory 
south  of  the  St.  John  River  came  under  the  control  of  Maine  officials,  was 
regarded,  at  least  by  some  close  observers  in  England,  as  fatal  to  the  British 
case. 

^ Earthworks  were  thrown  up  on  Fort  Hill  probably  while  the  state  troops 
were  at  what  is  now  Fort  Fairfield,  then  so  named  in  honor  of  the  governor 
of  Maine.  There  was  also  a blockhouse  and  a barrack  building  on  the  hill, 
the  whole  then  known  as  Fort  Fairfield.  There  was  also  a blockhouse  on  the 
bank  of  the  Aroostook  River,  a short  distance  north  of  the  other  blockhouse. 
Both  blockhouses  long  since  had  their  day  even  as  memorials;  but  the  old 
barrack  house,  removed  from  the  original  site,  still  serves  tenants,  and  a few 
grassy  furrows  on  the  brow  of  Fort  Hill  yet  remain  as  the  visible  signs  of 
Fort  Fairfield’s  part  in  the  Aroostook  war.  The  blockhouse  at  Fort  Kent, 
which  is  still  standing,  is  said  to  have  been  erected  in  1841,  and  was  named 
for  Governor  Kent. 

^Adjutant  General' s Report^  1839,  20,  21.  In  1904,  in  accordance  with  a 
council  order  passed  November  24,  1903,  an  historical  sketch  of  the  Aroos- 
took war,  and  a roster  of  commissioned  officers  and  enlisted  men  called  into 
service  for  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier  of  Maine,  from  Febru- 


Blockhouse  at  Fort  Kent. 


THE  AROOSTOOK  WAR. 


275 


“Aroostook  war”  ended.  There  was  no  more  encroachment  on 
the  timber  lands  of  Maine,  and  there  was  no  further  seizure  of 
Maine  land  agents  or  imprisonment  of  Maine  citizens.  What 
was  intended  had  been  accomplished. 

ary  to  May,  1839,  was  prepared  in  the  office  of  the  adjutant  general  of  Maine 
and  published  by  the  state.  The  detail  of  the  detachment  made  by  order  of 
Governor  Fairfield,  February  19,  1839,  called  for  ten  thousand,  three  hundred 
and  forty- three  men.  The  names  of  both  officers  and  men  actually  called 
into  service  at  Aroostook  are  given  in  this  record. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Complaints  under  the  New  Agreement. 


HE  new  agreement  with  reference  to  the  exercise  of  juris- 
diction in  the  disputed  territory  was  not  followed  by 
those  harmonious  relations  along  the  border  which  some 
at  least  supposed,  or  hoped,  had  been  secured.  As  has 
already  appeared,  it  was  not  such  an  arrangement  as  the  Brit- 
ish minister  and  the  secretary  of  state  had  proposed.  The  British 
minister  had  no  specific  authority  for  attaching  his  signature  even 
to  the  rejected  memorandum,  while  the  lieutenant  governor  of 
New  Brunswick,  in  declaring  in  the  agreement  that  it  was  not  his 
intention  to  seek  to  take  military  possession  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory, or  to  seek  by  military  force  to  expel  from  that  territory  the 
armed  civil  posse  of  Maine,  did  so  with  the  qualifying  words, 
“without  renewed  instructions  to  that  effect  from  his  govern- 
ment.” In  fact,  as  early  as  November  6,  1839,  Mr.  Vail,  the 
acting  secretary  of  state  at  Washington,  called  the  attention  of 
Governor  Fairfield  to  a communication  ^ he  had  received  from  Mr. 
Fox,  the  British  minister,  protesting  in  the  name  of  the  British 
government  against  certain  alleged  acts  of  encroachment  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  Maine,  which  from  his  point  of  view  were 
regarded  as  at  variance  with  the  agreements  of  the  preceding 
March.  First,  the  armed  posse,  stationed  in  the  disputed  terri- 
tory for  the  protection  of  public  property,  had  extended  its  terri- 
torial occupation  to  the  mouth  of  Fish  River,  and  accordingly,  it 
was  claimed,  into  a portion  of  the  Madawaska  settlements.  Sec- 
ond, the  armed  posse  had  assumed  an  aspect  and  character  decid- 
edly military,  something  more  like  a permanent  national  possession 
of  the  country,  the  land  agent’s  station  being  fortified  with  can- 

Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  57-59. 


COMPLA.INTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


277 


non  and  entrenchments.  Third,  the  road  under  construction  to 
Fish  River  was  a road  connecting  Bangor  with  the  disputed  ter- 
ritory. Fourth,  surveyors,  acting  under  state  authority,  were 
locating  lots  and  townships  and  making  sales  of  land  in  that  por- 
tion of  the  territory.  Because  of  these  complaints,  the  governor 
was  reminded  by  the  president  of  his  anxious  desire  that  nothing 
should  be  permitted  to  call  in  question  the  faithful  observance  of 
existing  agreements,  and  he  asked  the  governor  for  such  informa- 
tion in  relation  to  the  acts  above  mentioned  as  were  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  government  of  Maine. ^ 

In  his  reply,  November  21,  1839,  Governor  Fairfield  informed 
the  president  that  the  first  of  these  complaints  had  reference  to  the 
fact  that  the  land  agent  of  the  state  had  sent  a small  force  to 
Fish  River  to  disperse  a band  of  trespassers  operating  in  that 
locality.  Their  camps  were  broken  up,  some  of  the  trespassers 
were  driven  off,  and  a few,  with  their  teams,  were  brought  to  the 
Aroostook  settlement,  though  subsequently  they  were  released. 
Later,  another  force  was  sent  to  the  mouth  of  the  Fish  River 
to  construct  a boom  at  that  point  to  prevent  other  depreda- 
tions. This  proceeding,  said  the  governor,  in  no  wise  violated  the 
arrangement  made  by  General  Scott.  The  agent  had  a right  to  go 
anywhere  in  the  American  portion  of  the  disputed  territory  to 
protect  timber  recently  cut  and  to  prevent  future  encroachments. 
As  to  the  military  character  of  these  proceedings,  the  members  of 
the  land  agent’s  armed  posse  were  neither  militia  nor  United  States 
soldiers,  but  hired  laborers,  protecting  public  property.  “At  all 
events,”  remarked  the  governor,  “the  complaint  at  the  extent  of 
this  force  was  hardly  to  have  been  expected  from  the  British  gov- 
ernment just  at  this  moment,  when  a few  days  only  have  elapsed 
since  some  fifty  of  its  own  subjects,  bearing  the  queen’s  arms, 
and  otherwise  suitably  equipped,  headed  by  a veteran  militia  cap- 
tain, made  an  assault,  in  the  dead  of  night,  upon  that  very  force 

'^Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  49,  50.  Also 
Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary,  State  Library,  IV, 
276-280. 


278 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


which  is  now  described  as  ‘greater  than  the  occasion  would  war- 
rant.’ ” As  to  the  third  complaint,  it  was  true  that  a road  was  in 
process  of  construction,  and  was  passable  with  some  vehicles  the 
whole  way.  But  this  was  no  new  thing.  An  appropriation  for 
the  road  was  made  by  the  Legislature  as  early  as  1826.  More- 
over, with  no  propriety  could  this  be  made  a matter  of  complaint, 
when  Great  Britain  was  constructing  a permanent  mail  road 
through  the  disputed  territory  north  of  the  St.  John.  Finally, 
with  reference  to  marking  out  lots  and  townships  and  selling 
them,  all  this  had  been  done  upon  the  Aroostook  for  many  years. 
Certainly,  the  boundary  question  had  not  advanced  far  in  the  way 
of  settlement  if  the  people  of  Maine  could  not  still  do  what  they 
had  done  so  long  without  any  remonstrance  from  the  British  gov- 
ernment.^ 

Added  facts  concerning  this  action  on  the  part  of  British  offi- 
cials along  the  border  soon  reached  Governor  Fairfield,  and  on 
December  12th  he  called  Sir  John  Harvey’s  attention  to  this  vio- 
lation of  the  understanding  existing  between  New  Brunswick  and 
Maine,  according  to  statements  published  in  New  Brunswick 
newspapers,  in  which  mention  was  made  of  two  British  regiments, 
said  to  have  been  stationed  at  Temiscouata  Lake  in  the  disputed 
territory;  and  he  asked  if  there  was  any  foundation  for  these 
newspaper  statements.  Sir  John  Harvey,  in  reply  December  19th, 
cleared  himself  of  any  connection  with  such  action  by  saying  that 
“whatever  movements  of  troops  may  have  taken  place  on  this 
side  of  Lower  Canada  have  been  made  by  authority  superior  to 
mine.”  He  was  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  the  force  men- 
tioned consisted  not  of  two  regiments,  but  of  one  or  two  compan- 
ies, sent  for  the  protection  of  certain  buildings  that  had  been  con- 
structed for  the  accommodation  of  British  troops  on  their  march 
between  Lower  Canada  and  the  maritime  provinces,  and  for  the 
storage  of  provisions  deposited  for  their  use.  However,  he  would 
transmit  the  governor’s  letter  to  the  Canadian  authorities,  who, 

Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  50-53,  59-62. 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


279 


he  believed,  were  as  anxious  as  he  that  the  agreement  arranged 
by  General  Scott  should  be  scrupulously  observed.^ 

On  receiving  Sir  John  Harvey’s  letter,  Governor  Fairfield, 
December  23,  1839,  sent  to  President  Van  Buren  the  correspond- 
ence concerning  this  establishment  of  a British  military  post  in 
the  disputed  territory,  and  asked,  even  though  the  orders  had 
been  issued  by  the  governor  of  Dower  Canada,  “whether  the  con- 
tingency contemplated  by  the  act  of  Congress,  March  3,  1839, 
had  not  occurred,  showing  an  invasion  of  the  State  of  Maine 
which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  general  government  to  repel.”  He 
was  informed,  he  said,  that  the  British  government  was  erecting 
barracks  upon  both  sides  of  the  St.  John  River,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Madawaska,  and  that  troops  were  concentrating  at  Grand 
Falls. “ 

Mr.  Forsyth,  the  secretary  of  state,  replying  to  this  communi- 
cation January  2,  1840,  informed  Governor  Fairfield  that  a report 
concerning  this  alleged  occupation  of  the  disputed  territory  by 
British  troops  had  reached  the  president  from  another  source,  and 
that  an  explanation  had  been  requested  from  the  British  minister.* 
January  12th,  the  latter  expressed  regret  that  Maine’s  explana- 
tions with  reference  to  recent  encroachments  were  altogether 
unsatisfactory  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  while  as  to 
Maine’s  complaints  of  British  encroachments,  the  particular 
motives  of  the  movement  mentioned  had  been  explained  to  the 
governor  of  Maine  “in  a frank  and  satisfactory  manner,”  in  cor- 
respondence which  had  been  made  public;  and  he  added  that 
with  regard  generally  to  the  reinforcement  of  military  posts  and 
other  defensive  and  precautionary  measures,  whether  along  the 
confines  of  the  disputed  territory,  or  within  that  portion  of  it, 
where  according  to  provisional  agreements  the  authority  of  Great 

'^Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  55.  Also  Man- 
uscript Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary , State  Library  IV,  284- 
286. 

"^Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  55. 

®Ib.,  55.  k\5o  Manuscript  Correspondence,  etc..  Northeastern  Boundary, 
State  Library  IV,  288,  289. 


280 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Britain  was  not  to  be  interfered  with,  the  adoption  of  such  meas- 
ures as  were  mentioned  could  not  reasonably  be  made  the  subject 
of  complaint  by  the  United  States,  “when  regard  is  had  to  the 
reports  which  have  for  some  time  past  been  circulated  (and  of  the 
prevalence  and  consistency  of  those  reports  the  United  States 
government  are  themselves  fully  aware)  respecting  the  probable 
intention  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  revoke,  dur- 
ing the  present  session,  the  provisional  agreements  now  in  force, 
and  to  authorize  some  new  and  extensive  act  of  aggression  over 
the  stipulated  territory.”  And  the  British  minister  closed  this 
somewhat  remarkable  statement  with  an  expression  of  regret  “to 
observe  that  the  language  of  the  governor  of  Maine,  in  his  recent 
message  to  the  Legislature,  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  is  calcu- 
lated to  encourage  rather  than  to  restrain  such  rash  and  obnox- 
ious designs.”  ^ 

Governor  Fairfield’s  message,  to  which  allusion  was  made  by 
the  British  minister,  was  delivered  January  3,  1840.  That  part 
of  the  message  which  received  from  Mr.  Fox  such  strong  words 
of  condemnation  was  apparently  the  following:  “The  long  pend- 
ing question  in  relation  to  our  northeastern  boundary  is  still  open 
and  unadjusted,  though  we  have  reason,  perhaps,  for  believing 
that  it  has  made  some  advances  during  the  past  year.  We  have 
had  a renewed  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  general 
government  that  the  territory  in  dispute  is  a part  of  the  State  of 
Maine — an  indication  of  a determination  to  discharge,  in  good 
faith,  the  duty  of  that  government  to  this  State,  of  maintaining 
the  integrity  of  its  territory  and  a national  sanction  of  the  military 
demonstrations  made  by  this  State  in  February  and  March  last. 
It  is  also  well  understood  now  by  all  parties,  that  however  patient 
and  forbearing  Maine  will  be  while  honest  and  earnest  attempts 
are  being  made  to  run  the  line  and  definitely  settle  the  question, 
she  will  not  submit  longer  to  be  deprived  of  her  territory  by  such 
a system  of  vexatious  and  unjustifiable  procrastination  as  has 
heretofore  been  practiced;  and  that  the  question  must  be  settled 

'^Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  62,  63. 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


281 


speedily,  in  some  way  or  other,  if  hostilities  are  to  be  avoided. 
This  is  gaining-  something.  When  parties  are  fully  aware  of  the 
precise  position  they  occupy,  the  next  step  taken  by  them  will  be 
taken  understandingly,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it.  Again, 
the  occurrences  of  last  winter  seemed  to  awaken  the  attention 
of  the  country  to  the  momentous  importance  of  the  question,  and 
to  induce  such  an  examination  of  it  as  to  result  in  a strong  and 
universal  conviction  that  the  pretense  of  claim  set  up  by  Great 
Britain  to  the  disputed  territory  is  palpably  unfounded  and 
unjust,  and  can  be  persevered  in  only  through  an  utter  disregard 

of  the  plain  and  unambiguous  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783.^ 

The  views  which  I have  presented  in  this  communication  upon 
the  subject  of  the  boundary  were  those  entertained  independently 
of  what  is  now  an  ascertained  fact,  to  wit,  that  our  territory  is 
actually  invaded,  and  of  course  are  to  be  modified  by  that  circum- 
stance. Official  information  of  that  fact  was  received  by  me  a 
few  days  since  while  on  my  way  to  this  place, ^ in  a reply  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick  to  a let- 
ter of  inquiry  addressed  to  him  by  myself  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  admitted  that  one  or  two  companies  of  British  troops 
have  been  stationed  at  Temiscouata  Lake,  but  it  is  alleged  by  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  to  have  been  done,  not  by  his  own  orders, 
but  by  the  authorities  of  Lower  Canada.  This  movement,  I can- 
not but  regard,  under  whatever  branch  of  British  authority,  or  on 
whatever  pretense  it  may  have  been  made,  not  only  as  a violation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  arrangement  agreed  upon  in  March  last,  but 
as  clearly  an  invasion  of  territory.  Under  these  circumstances  I 
deemed  it  to  be  my  duty  immediately  to  communicate  the  facts  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  other  though  less  official 
information  received,  of  the  building  of  barracks  by  the  British 
government  on  both  sides  of  the  St.  John,  near  the  mouth  of 
the  Madawaska  river,  which  I did,  calling  officially  for  that  action 
on  the  part  of  the  general  government  which  the  case  required 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  235. 

^Augusta. 


282 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  clearly- 
enjoined.”  ^ 

In  these  words  addressed  to  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  the  president  of  the  United  States,  found  so  little  evidence 
of  “rash  and  obnoxious  designs”  that  he  directed  the  secretary  of 
state  to  say  to  the  British  minister  that  he  could  perceive  no  rea- 
son for  doubting  the  disposition  of  the  governor  of  Maine  scrupu- 
lously to  adhere  to  the  spirit  of  the  existing  arrangements,  and  to 
avoid  all  acts  tending  to  render  more  difl&cult  and  distant  the  final 
adjustment  of  the  main  question  with  reference  to  the  boundary; 
“while  the  persistence  in,  or  a repetition  of,  such  acts  on  the  part 
of  her  Majesty’s  agents  as  those  now  complained  of,  would,  if 
assumed  by  Great  Britain,  be  considered  as  but  little  in  accord- 
ance with  those  assurances.”  * 

January  26th,  the  British  minister  reiterated  his  denial  of  any 
infringement  of  the  terms  of  agreement  by  British  action,  saying, 
“it  appears  from  accurate  information,  now  in  the  possession  of 
the  undersigned,  that  the  Governor  of  Maine,  and,  through  him, 
the  President  and  general  government  of  the  United  States,  have 
been  misinformed  as  to  the  facts.  In  the  first  place,  no  reinforce- 
ment has  been  marched  to  the  British  post  at  Lake  Temiscouata; 
the  only  change  occurring  there  has  been  the  relief  of  a detachment 
of  her  Majesty’s  Twenty-fourth  regiment  by  a detachment  of 
equal  force  of  the  Eleventh  regiment;  this  force  of  one  company 
being  now  stationed  at  the  Temiscouata  post,  as  it  always  has 
been,  for  the  necessary  purpose  of  protecting  the  stores  and 
accommodations  provided  for  the  use  of  her  Majesty’s  troops, 
who  may  be  required,  as  heretofore,  to  march  by  that  route  to 
and  from  the  provinces  of  Canada  and  New  Brunswick.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  not  true  that  the  British  authorities  either  have 
built,  or  are  building,  barracks  on  both  sides  of  the  St.  John 
river,  or  at  the  mouth  of  the  Madawaska;  no  new  barracks  have 
in  fact  been  built  anywhere.  In  the  third  place,  her  Majesty’s 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  239,  240. 

‘^Senate  Document  No.  107,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  65. 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


283 


authorities  are  not  concentrating  a military  force  at  the  Grand 
Falls;  the  same  trifling  force  of  sixteen  men  is  now  stationed  at 
the  post  of  the  Grand  Falls  which  has  been  stationed  there  for 
the  last  twelvemonth.”  While,  however,  Great  Britain  had  no 
intention  to  infringe  the  terms  of  agreement  recently  accepted, 
Mr.  Fox  held  it  to  be  his  duty,  he  said,  to  say  that  in  view  of  the 
attitude  of  the  State  of  Maine,  her  Majesty’s  authorities  in  North 
America,  as  at  present  advised,  would  be  governed  entirely  by 
circumstances  in  adopting  such  measures  of  defense  and  protec- 
tion as  would  seem  to  them  necessary.^ 

Such  a proclamation  of  purpose  from  the  representative  of 
Great  Britain  in  Washington  carried  with  it  little  hope  of  peace- 
ful conditions  on  the  northeastern  border  according  to  lessons 
from  past  experiences.  While  awaiting  further  information  from 
Maine,  having  forwarded  Mr.  Fox’s  letter  to  Governor  Fairfleld 
with  other  documents,  the  secretary  of  state,  in  his  reply  to  Mr. 
Fox  on  January  28th,  informed  him  that  the  president  could  not 
repress  a feeling  of  regret  that  the  British  colonial  authorities, 
without  graver  motives  than  the  possibility  of  Maine’s  departure 
from  the  agreement  arranged  by  General  Scott,  should  take  upon 
themselves  the  discretion,  and  along  with  it  the  fearful  responsi- 
bility, of  the  probable  consequences;  and  he  hoped  that  when  the 
home  government  should  be  apprised  of  the  position  thus  assumed, 
proper  steps  would  be  taken  ‘ ‘to  place  the  performance  of  express 
and  solemn  agreements  upon  a more  secure  basis  than  colonial 
discretion  to  be  exercised  on  apprehended  disregard  of  such 
agreements  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  Maine.”  ^ 

Mr.  Fox’s  letter,  when  printed  in  Maine  newspapers,  stirred 
anew  deep  public  feeling,  and  the  governor,  before  communicat- 
ing again  with  the  president,  called  for  added  information  from 
the  disputed  territory.  When  this  was  received,  writing  again  to 
President  Van  Buren,  he  made  mention  of  the  profound  astonish- 
ment with  which  the  letter  of  the  British  minister  had  been  read, 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  569. 

2lb.,  Ill,  570. 


284 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  inclosed  depositions  from  a number  of  citizens  of  Maine, 
showing  from  personal  knowledge  that  up  to  the  preceding  May, 
nearly  two  months  subsequent  to  the  arrangement  entered  into 
through  the  mediation  of  General  Scott,  no  troops  whatever  were 
stationed  at  Temiscouata  Lake;  that  in  August,  September  and 
October,  the  number  did  not  exceed  twenty-five,  while  now  it 
had  been  increased  to  about  two  hundred;  that  prior  to  May  no 
barracks  had  been  erected  at  Temiscouata,  but  since  that  time 
two  had  been  built  at  the  head  of  the  lake,  besides  five  or  six 
other  buildings,  apparently  adapted  to  the  establishment  of  a 
permanent  military  post;  and  at  the  foot  of  the  lake  two  or  more 
buildings  for  barracks  and  other  military  purposes;  that,  though 
no  new  barracks  had  been  erected  at  Madawaska,  certain  build- 
ings heretofore  in  use  had  been  secured  for  barrack  purposes; 
that  a road  had  been  constructed  connecting  the  military  post  at 
the  head  and  foot  of  the  lake;  a tow  path  had  been  made  along 
the  Madawaska  River;  the  road  from  the  head  of  the  lake  to  the 
military  post  at  the  river  Des  Loups  had  been  thoroughly  re- 
paired; transport  boats  also  had  been  built. ^ 

Governor  Fairfield  also  sent  Benjamin  Wiggin,  of  Augusta,  to 
Madawaska  and  Temiscouata  Lake,  where,  “by  actual  observa- 
tion,” he  obtained  the  following  information,  which  was  commu- 
nicated to  the  governor  February  27,  1840:  Twenty-two  miles 
below  the  mouth  of  Fish  River,  on  the  south  side  of  the  St.  John, 
and  nearly  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Madawaska,  a house  had 
been  turned  into  a barrack  and  rented  for  that  purpose  by  the 
British  government,  but  there  were  no  troops  there  at  that  time. 
It  was  built  of  hewn  timber,  two  stories  high,  about  sixty  feet 
long  and  thirty  wide,  with  bunks  for  more  than  one  hundred 
men.  A tow  path  on  the  east  side  of  the  Madawaska  River  had 
been  made  during  the  past  season.  Two  and  one-half  miles  below 
the  foot  of  Temiscouata  Lake,  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Madawaska 

^The  depositions  to  which  the  governor  referred,  and  which  accompanied 
his  letter,  were  made  by  Phineas  Varnum,  Thomas  Bartlett,  of  Orono,  and 
Mark  Little,  of  Bangor.  These  were  printed  in  Senate  Document  No.  266, 
26th  Congress,  First  Session,  6-9. 


s 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


285 


River,  the  British  had  erected  early  in  the  preceding  summer  a 
barrack  about  eighty  feet  long  and  thirty  feet  wide,  and  two  small 
outbuildings.  At  this  post  there  were  now  stationed  a sergeant, 
a corporal  and  five  privates  of  the  eleventh  regiment  of  the  Brit- 
ish army.  Near  this  point  commenced  a road  nearly  completed, 
connecting  the  post  with  the  post  fifteen  miles  from  the  foot  of 
Temiscouata  Lake,  where  the  British  had  erected  eight  buildings 
as  barracks  for  soldiers,  officers’  quarters,  a hospital,  magazine, 
storehouse  and  commissary’s  house,  all  of  which  were  surrounded 
by  a ditch,  breastworks,  and  stockades  on  three  sides.  The  fourth 
side  was  not  then  completed.  A plan  of  the  works  was  attached 
to  the  report.  From  Major  Chambri,  the  ofiicer  in  command,  Mr. 
Wiggin,  having  stated  the  purpose  of  his  inquiry,  learned  that  he 
had  under  his  command  a grenadier  company  of  the  eleventh 
regiment,  about  eighty-five  men,  a company  of  light  infantry,  of 
the  same  regiment,  about  ninety  men,  in  all  one  hundred  and 
seventy  men,  not  including  commissioned  officers  or  servants. 
The  barracks  were  commenced  in  the  preceding  spring,  and  some 
of  the  buildings  were  still  unfinished.  The  first  soldiers  stationed 
there  came  in  June  last,  comprising  a sergeant,  corporal  and  ten 
men  of  the  twenty-fourth  regiment,  and  in  November  following, 
the  company  of  grenadiers  were  ordered  to  take  their  place. 
About  the  first  of  January  they  were  reinforced  by  the  third  com- 
pany. The  statements  with  reference  to  the  construction  of  road, 
and  flat-bottom  boats  for  the  transportation  of  troops  on  the  lake, 
were  corroborated.^ 

This  report,  with  the  depositions  mentioned,  was  sent  to 
Washington  by  Governor  Fairfield.  In  forwarding  the  report 
and  other  papers  to  the  British  minister,  March  6th,  Mr.  Forsyth 
remarked  that  the  statements  contained  in  them  exhibited  a strik- 
ing discrepancy  as  to  the  troops  mentioned,  compared  with  those 
who  were  there  when  the  arrangement  was  made  by  General  Scott, 

^A  plan  of  the  fort  with  the  location  of  the  houses  accompanied  the  report. 
Manuscript  Correspondence , etc..  Northeastern  Botmdary , State  Library,  IV, 
319-321. 


286 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


and  also  with  the  present  and  former  state  of  the  buildings  there. 
These  extensive  accommodations,  prepared  and  preparing  at  old 
and  new  stations,  the  works  finished  and  in  the  process  of  con- 
struction, were  not  in  accordance  wdth  the  assurance  that  the  only- 
object  in  view  was  the  preservation  of  a few  unimportant  build- 
ings and  storehouses  for  the  temporary  protection  of  the  number 
of  troops  that  any  ordinary  service  could  require  to  pass  on  the 
road  from  New  Brunswick  to  Canada.^ 

Mr.  Fox,  in  his  reply  on  the  following  day,  however,  reaffirmed 
his  previous  statements  concerning  the  barracks  and  other  build- 
ings at  Lake  Temiscouata,  and  also  as  to  the  military  force  there, 
though  he  admitted  that  he  would  have  been  more  correct  techni- 
cally if  he  had  made  the  British  detachment  at  that  point  to  con- 
sist of  from  one  to  two  companies  instead  of  one.  The  British 
authorities  had  not  strengthened  their  military  arrangements  in 
the  disputed  territory,  he  still  claimed,  while  he  reiterated  the 
suggestion  that  the  adoption  of  such  measures  as  were  now  made 
the  subject  of  complaint  by  the  United  States  would  sooner  or 
later  become  indispensable  if  the  people  of  Maine  were  not  com- 
pelled to  desist  from  a system  of  armed  aggression  which  they 
were  maintaining  in  other  parts  of  the  disputed  territory.^  On 
March  25th,  Mr.  Fox  again  addressed  a note  to  Mr.  Forsyth, 
instructed  by  the  British  government  to  protest  against  acts  of 
encroachment  persisted  in  by  the  State  of  Maine,  and  publicly 
avowed  with  the  expressed  expectation  that  the  people  of  Maine 
would  “replace  themselves  in  the  situation  in  which  they  stood 
before  the  agreements,  ’ ’ retiring  from  the  valley  of  the  St.  John 
and  confining  themselves  to  the  valley  of  the  Aroostook,  adding 
that  as  long  as  these  acts  of  aggression  were  contined,  her  Majes- 
ty ’s  government  would  regard  it  a duty  to  make  such  military 
arrangements  as  should  seem  to  be  required,  while  if  collision 
between  the  troops  of  the  two  countries  should  result,  the  respon- 

^Senate  Document  No.  266,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  12. 

*Ib.,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  12-14. 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


287 


sibility  would  rest  with  the  people  and  government  of  the  United 
States.^ 

In  his  reply,  Mr.  Forsyth  expressed  disappointment  on  the 
part  of  the  president  at  this  continued  imputation  “to  a portion 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States”  of  designs  “which  have  never 
been  entertained,  and  which  Mr.  Fox  knows  would  receive  no 
countenance  from  this  government”;  and  reviewing  the  British 
complaints  of  encroachment  he  insisted  that  it  was  “in  the  exer- 
cise of  a legitimate  right,  and  in  the  conscientious  discharge  of  an 
obligation  imposed  upon  her  by  a solemn  compact,”  that  th'e 
State  of  Maine  had  given  attention  to  matters  which  had  been 
made  the  occasion  of  complaints  “for  which  no  adequate  cause  is 
perceived.”  As  to  the  advance  of  the  Maine  posse  along  the 
Aroostook  valley  to  the  mouth  of  Fish  River,  and  into  the  valley 
of  the  upper  St.  John,  it  had  already  been  explained  “why  the 
mouth  of  Fish  river,  and  the  portion  of  the  valley  of  the  St.  John 
through  which  it  passes,  could  in  no  proper  sense  be  considered 
as  embraced  in  the  Madawaska  settlements.”  To  give  those  set- 
tlements such  a degree  of  constructive  extension  as  was  now 
claimed  by  her  Majesty’s  colonial  authorities  might  soon,  under 
like  demands,  be  made  to  embrace  any  portions  of  the  disputed 
territory.  With  such  a claim  as  within  the  meaning  of  the  agree- 
ment, it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  limitations  to  the 
pretensions  of  her  Majesty’s  government,  or  of  any  way  in  which 
“the  State  of  Maine  could  exercise  the  preventive  power  with 
regard  to  trespassers,  which  was,  on  her  part,  the  great  object  of 
the  temporary  arrangement.”  A still  graver  aspect  to  the  matter 
was  given  by  the  military  operations  left  unsatisfactorily  accounted 
for  by  Mr.  Fox,  and  therefore  an  abiding  cause  of  complaint  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  as  inconsistent  with  arrangements 
whose  main  purpose  was  to  divest  from  embarrassment  a question 
already  sufficiently  perplexed  and  complicated.  Maine’s  conduct, 
he  declared,  contrasts  most  favorably  with  that  of  the  colonial 
authorities.  Her  military  force  was  promptly  withdrawn,  only  a 

^Senate  Document  No.  319,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  1,  2 . 


288 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


small  posse,  armed  as  agreed  upon,  being  left,  and  used  for  no  act 
unnecessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  conventional  objects; 
while  the  other  party  is  essentially  military  in  its  character,  and 
could  be  justified  only  by  a well-founded  apprehension  that  hos- 
tilities must  ensue. 

Accordingly  the  president  could  not  but  view  with  surprise,  Mr. 
Forsyth  said,  the  attempt  of  Mr.  Fox,  under  instructions  from 
his  government,  to  give  to  the  existing  state  of  things  a character 
not  warranted  by  the  friendly  disposition  of  the  United  States,  or 
the  conduct  of  the  authorities  and  people  of  Maine.  But  he  was 
much  more  surprised  to  find  that  present  conditions  were  made 
an  occasion  for  strengthening  the  British  military  force  on  the 
border,  thus  preparing  for  a hostile  collision  with  the  unarmed 
inhabitants  of  a friendly  state.  No  apprehension  of  the  conse- 
quences mentioned  by  the  British  minister,  however,  would  be 
“permitted  to  divert  the  government  of  the  United  States  from 
the  performance  of  their  duty  to  the  State  of  Maine.  That  duty 
is  as  simple  as  it  is  imperative.  The  construction  which  is  given 
by  her  to  the  treaty  of  1783  has  been  again  and  again,  and  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  asserted  by  the  federal  government,  and 
must  be  maintained,  unless  Maine  freely  consents  to  a new  bound- 
ary, or  unless  that  construction  of  the  treaty  is  found  to  be  erro- 
neous by  the  decision  of  a disinterested  and  independent  tribunal 
selected  by  the  parties  for  its  final  adjustment.”  ^ 

Evidently  there  was  need  of  an  expression  of  these  calm  yet 
forceful  words  at  the  capital  of  the  nation.  Maine  was  asserting 
her  own  convictions  with  reference  to  the  situation  upon  the  bor- 
der in  language  no  less  forceful  and  as  easily  understood.  On 
March  18,  1840,  the  governor  of  Maine  approved  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Legislature,  declaring  that  unless  the  British  gov- 
ernment, during  the  present  session  of  Congress,  should  make  a 
distinct  and  satisfactory  proposition  for  the  immediate  adjustment 
of  the  boundary  controversy,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  general 
government  to  take  military  possession  of  the  disputed  territory; 

'^Senate  Document  No.  319,  26lh  Congress,  First  Session,  2,  6. 


COMPLAINTS  UNDER  THE  NEW  AGREEMENT. 


289 


otherwise  it  would  become  the  imperative  duty  of  Maine  to  assume 
the  defense  of  the  honor  of  the  state  and  nation,  and  to  expel  from 
her  territory  the  British  troops  who  were  quartered  there. ^ In 
brief,  it  was  felt  that  the  crisis  was  near  in  which  the  long  stand- 
ing issue  with  Great  Britain  concerning  the  boundary  of  the  treaty 
of  1783  would  be  settled  either  by  negotiation  or  by  the  ultimate 
resort. 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  1840,  226,  227. 


19 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Projects  and  Counter-Projects. 


settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy  in  order  to  avert, 
not  only  added  and  more  serious  disturbances  but  another  war, 
which  could  not  but  be  regarded,  in  England  as  well  as  in  the 
United  States,  as  most  deplorable  from  every  point  of  view. 
Accordingly,  there  were  movements  having  such  an  end  in  view. 
March  15,  1839,  the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington  informed 
the  American  minister  in  London  that  the  recently  arrived  secre- 
tary of  the  British  legation  had  let  it  be  known,  evidently  by 
authority,  that  before  he  left  London  he  had  seen,  in  the  foreign 
office,  a projet  of  a convention  for  exploration  and  survey,  which 
was  intended  to  be  proposed  to  the  United  States. 

The  American  minister,  in  a letter  to  Lord  Palmerston,  March 
30,  1839,  urged  the  desirability  of  such  a prompt  and  speedy  set- 
tlement of  the  long  pending  controversy  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. Referring  to  the  embarrassing  conditions  recently  existing 
on  the  borders  of  Maine  and  New  Brunswick,  he  said  that  pas- 
sions, highly  exasperated  under  impressions  of  injury  and  wrong, 
could  have  no  other  effect  than  to  protract  and  embitter  a conten- 
tion which  otherwise  might  be  happily  terminated;  and  he  called 
attention  to  a special  mission  to  Great  Britain,  for  which  provision 
was  made  by  recent  action  of  Congress,  informing  the  prime  min- 
ister that  he  had  been  directed  to  announce  to  the  British  govern- 
ment the  willingness  of  the  president  of  the  United  States  to 
institute  such  a mission  for  the  purpose  of  hastening  or  facilitat- 
ing the  proposed  settlement.^ 

^North  American  Boundary,  Part  I.  Correspondence  Relating  to  the 
Boundary  between  the  British  Possessions  in  North  America  and  the  United 


u 


NQUESTIONABLY  there  was  occasion  for  renewed  diplo- 
matic activity.  Clashings  and  complaints  on  both  sides 
of  the  border  emphasized  the  importance  of  a prompt 


PROJECTS  AND  COUNTER-PROJECTS. 


291 


In  his  reply,  April  3d,  Lord  Palmerston  took  the  ground  that 
if  the  two  governments  were  at  liberty  to  arrive  at  a final  and 
immediate  settlement  of  the  controversy  by  a conventional  division 
of  the  territory  in  dispute,  the  British  government  would  be  of 
the  opinion  that  advantage  might  arise  from  the  proposed  mission; 
“but  Maine  having  refused  to  agree  to  a conventional  line,  and 
another  reference  to  arbitration  being  in  the  present  state  of  the 
matter  out  of  the  question,”  the  only  course  left  open  for  the  two 
governments,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  was  to  cause  a fresh  survey  of 
the  territory  to  be  made,  for  the  purpose  of  endeavoring  to  trace 
upon  the  earth  the  line  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  special  mis- 
sion, proposed  by  the  United  States,  was  therefore  declined;  and 
Lord  Palmerston  submitted  the  draft  of  a convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  regulating  the  proceedings  of  the  commissioners  to  be 
appointed  by  the  two  governments  for  this  end,  in  the  hope,  he 
said,  that  the  report  of  these  commissioners  would  either  settle 
the  question  at  issue,  or  furnish  to  the  two  governments  such 
information  as  might  lead  directly  to  a settlement.^ 

In  this  note,  referring  to  the  attitude  of  Maine  in  the  recent 
border  troubles.  Lord  Palmerston  made  mention  of  “proceedings 
on  the  part  of  Maine,  planned  and  decided  upon  in  secret,  exe- 
cuted suddenly,  without  previous  notice,  and  so  conducted  that 
if  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  government  of  Maine  to  pro- 
voke a conflict  better  means  could  not  have  been  devised  to  attain 
that  end.”  Mr.  Stevenson,  the  American  minister,  in  his  reply, 
respectfully  made  known  to  Lord  Palmerston  his  painful  regret 
that  the  prime  minister  should  have  expressed  such  an  opinion. 
“Regarding  the  proceedings  and  conduct  of  Maine  in  a light 
wholly  different  from  that  supposed  by  his  Lordship,  the  under- 
signed deems  it  proper  to  say,  that  he  has  seen  nothing  in  the 
history  of  these  proceedings  which  would  seem  to  justify  the  opin- 

States  of  America,  under  the  Treaty  of  1783.  Presented  by  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  by  Command  of  Her  Majesty,  July,  1840.  London,  printed  by 
T.  R.  Harrison,  60-62. 

Ub.,  62,  63. 


292 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ion  expressed  by  his  Lordship  in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the 
authorities  of  Maine.  The  government  of  Maine  had  doubtless 
acted  under  the  high  obligations  of  duty.  They  felt  the  neces- 
sity of  protecting  themselves  from  the  unjust  operation  of  meas- 
ures with  which  they  had  been  threatened  by  the  British  colonial 
authorities,  and  with  that  view  took  the  steps  that  were  finally 

adopted To  regard  those  proceedings  in  any  other  light 

than  defensive  would  be  doing  injustice  not  only  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Maine,  but  to  the  patience  with  which  its  people  have 
endured,  and  the  moderation  with  which  they  have  sought,  in  the 
vindication  of  what  they  believed  to  be  their  just  rights,  to  guard 
against  collision  or  disagreements  between  the  two  governments.  ’ ’ ^ 
Certainly,  no  citizen  of  Maine,  with  greater  firmness  and  dignity, 
could  have  defended  his  state  against  these  unjust  reflections, 
made  by  the  prime  minister  of  England,  than  did  the  American 
minister  in  London. 

The  British  proposition  for  a new  exploration  and  survey,  pro- 
posed by  Lord  Palmerston,  was  attended  by  such  limitations  and 
conditions  as  to  cause  its  immediate  rejection  on  this  side  of  the 
sea;  and  in  the  course  of  the  summer  following  a counter-project 
was  submitted  to  Great  Britain  by  the  United  States.  This  coun- 
ter-project included  a provision  for  the  certain  and  final  adjust- 
ment of  the  limits  in  dispute;  and  it  was  still  before  the  British 
government  for  consideration,  when  President  Van  Buren  laid  his 
third  annual  message  before  Congress,  December  2,  1839.  “A 
just  regard  to  the  delicate  state  of  the  question,”  said  the  presi- 
dent, “and  a proper  respect  for  the  natural  impatience  of  the 
State  of  Maine,  not  less  than  a conviction  that  the  negotiation 
has  been  already  protracted  longer  than  is  prudent  on  the  part  of 
either  government,  have  led  me  to  believe  that  the  present  favor- 

'^North  Atnerican  Boundary,  Part  I.  Correspondence  Relating  to  the 
Boundary  between  the  British  Possessions  in  North  America  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  under  the  Treaty  of  1783 , Prese7ited  by  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  by  Cotnmand  of  Her  Majesty,  July,  1840.  London,  printed  by 
T.  R.  Harrison,  63,  64. 


PROJECTS  AND  COUNTER-PROJECTS. 


293 


able  moment  should  on  no  account  be  suffered  to  pass  without 
putting  the  question  forever  at  rest.”  ^ 

The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Maine  legislature  March  18, 
1840,  and  some  recent  diplomatic  correspondence  from  the  office 
of  the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  were  laid  before  the  sen- 
ate committee  on  foreign  affairs.  While  the  committee  had  these 
papers  under  consideration,  there  was  a discussion  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,^  in  which  Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  urged  atten- 
tion “in  the  face  of  a war,”  to  national  defense,  every  portion  of 
the  frontier,  he  said,  being  exposed.  Mr.  Adams,*  of  Massachu- 
setts, deprecating  war,  expressed  the  hope  that  the  differences  of 
the  two  nations  might  be  settled  by  arbitration.  No  nation,  he 
claimed,  could  refuse  to  adopt  such  a course.  The  British  gov- 
ernment, he  believed,  would  accept  such  a proposition,  if  not 
from  compulsion,  at  least  from  motives  of  policy.  The  only 
doubt  he  entertained  had  its  source  in  a fear  that  the  impatience 
and  impetuosity  of  the  people  of  Maine  might  lead  them  to  com- 
mence hostilities,  that  would  involve  the  nation.  Mr.  F.  O.  J. 
Smith,  of  Maine,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Adams,  referred  to  the  latter’s 
change  of  attitude.  Not  long  before,  said  Mr.  Smith,  he  was 
found  sustaining  the  military  operations  of  Maine  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  justifiable.  Maine  was  right  in  her  contention. 
He  now  holds  that  a similar  course  would  be  rash  and  indiscreet. 
For  his  own  part,  continued  Mr.  Smith,  he  could  not  distinguish 
between  an  invasion  of  Maine  last  year  and  a military  occupation 
this  year.  Certainly  there  had  been  no  change  of  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  Maine.  The  same  regard  for  the  honor  of 
the  state,  for  the  integrity  of  its  territory,  for  their  own  character 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  530. 

2 April  9,  1840. 

®John  Quincy  Adams  retired  from  the  presidency  of  the  United  States 
March  4,  1829.  In  1830,  he  was  elected  a member  of  the  national  House  of 
Representatives  from  Massachusetts  and  took  his  seat  in  December,  1831. 
This  seat  he  continued  to  hold  seventeen  years.  February  21,  1848,  while 
engaged  in  the  duties  of  a representative  at  the  capitol,  he  was  stricken  with 
paralysis  and  died  on  February  25th. 


294 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


as  American  citizens,  prompting  them  to  resist  the  invasion  of 
their  soil,  still  existed.  They  had  the  same  distinguished  gentle- 
man at  the  head  of  their  government;  and  the  people  of  the  coun- 
try might  be  assured  that  Governor  Fairfield  never  would  permit 
the  state  over  which  he  presided  to  be  disgraced  by  foreign  en- 
croachments. He  had,  also,  the  fullest  assurance  that  the  rights 
of  Maine  were  duly  regarded  by  the  president  and  the  general 
government.^ 

Five  days  after  this  discussion  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  senate  committee  on  foreign  affairs  presented  a report,  placing 
clearly  and  distinctly  before  that  body  the  existing  state  of  the 
pending  negotiations  between  the  two  governments  with  reference 
to  the  boundary  troubles.  The  president  in  his  annual  message 
had  informed  Congress  that  “for  the  settlement  of  our  northeast 
boundary,  the  proposition  promised  by  Great  Britain  for  a com- 
mission had  been  received,  and  a counter-project,  including  also 
a provision  for  the  certain  and  final  adjustment  of  the  limits  in 
dispute,  is  now  before  the  British  government  for  its  considera- 
tion.” This  counter-project  the  president  had  not  thought  it 
advisable  to  communicate  to  Congress.  The  committee,  however, 
had  his  assurance  that  it  was  of  such  a character  as  would,  should 
it  be  accepted,  finally  settle  the  question.  This  proposition  was 
officially  communicated  to  the  British  government.  As  late  as 
March  13,  1840,  the  British  minister  had  informed  the  secretary 
of  state  that  her  Majesty’s  government  was  only  waiting  for  the 
detailed  report  of  the  British  commissioners  recently  employed  to 
survey  the  disputed  territory,  in  order  to  transmit  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  a reply  to  its  last  proposal  upon  the 
subject  of  the  boundary  negotiation.  The  committee,  therefore, 
could  perceive  no  adequate  cause  at  present  for  anticipating  hos- 
tilities between  the  two  countries.  They  would  not  be  under- 
stood, however,  as  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  country  should 
not  be  prepared  for  any  emergency.  The  question  of  peace  or 

^Congresssional  Globe,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  VIII,  311,  312. 


PROJECTS  AND  COUNTER-PROJECTS. 


295 


war  would  in  a great  degree  depend  upon  the  answer  of  the  Brit- 
ish government,  which  was  expected  at  an  early  day.^ 

The  confidence  of  the  senate  committee  seems  to  have  had  a 
reasonable  basis;  for,  on  June  22,  1840,  the  British  minister  in 
Washington  announced  the  consent  of  the  British  government  to 
the  principles  of  the  last  proposition  of  the  United  States  for  the 
settlement  of  the  boundary.  The  British  draft  of  the  previous 
year,  having  reference  to  a final  settlement,  contained  no  provision 
embodying  the  principle  of  arbitration.  The  American  counter- 
draft contained  such  a provision.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Fox  said  he 
was  instructed  to  state  officially  that  Great  Britain  consented  to 
the  two  principles  which  form  the  main  foundation  of  the  Ameri- 
can counter-draft;  first,  that  the  commission  to  be  appointed  shall 
be  so  constituted  as  necessarily  to  lead  to  a final  settlement  of  the 
boundary  question,  and,  secondly,  that  in  order  to  secure  such  a 
result  the  convention,  by  which  the  commission  is  to  be  created, 
shall  contain  a provision  for  arbitration  upon  points  to  which  the 
British  and  American  commissioners  may  not  be  able  to  agree.  “ 

At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Fox  sent  to  Mr.  Forsyth  printed  copies 
of  the  report  and  map  prepared  by  the  two  British  commissioners. 
Colonel  Mudge  and  Mr.  Featherstonhaugh,  who  had  made  an  ex 
parte  survey  in  1839.  This  act  was  designated  by  the  British 
minister  “as  a mark  of  courtesy  and  consideration  toward  the 
government  of  the  United  States,”  in  that  “documents  of  so 
much  interest  and  importance’  ’ should  first  be  communicated  to 
the  president.  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  the  documents 
were  not  found  to  have  the  interest  and  importance  attributed  to 
them  by  the  British  minister  and  the  British  government.  “A 
most  extraordinary  report  it  was,”  said  Mr.  Webster  afterward 
in  a speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  “These  gentle- 
men [Messrs.  Mudge  and  Featherstonhaugh]  had  discovered  that 

^Senate  Document  No.  382,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  VI,  1,  2. 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  595,  596.  Referring  to  this 
communication,  Mr.  Webster,  somewhat  sarcastically,  said,  “The  industri- 
ous diplomats  resumed  their  severe  and  vigorous  labors.  ’ ’ 


296 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Up  to  that  time  nobody  had  been  right.  They  invented  a new 
line  of  highlands,  cutting  across  the  waters  of  the  Aroostook  and 
other  streams  emptying  into  the  St.  John,  which,  in  every  previ- 
ous examination  and  exploration,  had  escaped  all  mortal  eyes.”  ' 
Mr.  Forsyth,  June  26th,  in  a note  to  the  British  minister,  ex- 
pressed the  president’s  appreciation  of  the  motives  and  courtesy 
that  prompted  the  British  government  to  send  the  documents  that 
accompanied  Mr.  Fox’s  letter,  and  his  pleasure  at  the  prospect  of 
an  early  possession  of  the  draft  of  a proposition  with  reference  to 
a final  settlement  of  the  boundary  differences.^ 

It  was  soon  understood  why  the  British  government  attached  so 
much  importance  to  the  report  made  by  Colonel  Mudge  and  Mr. 
Featherstonhaugh.  Its  writers  supported  the  British  claim.  On 
July  20th,  an  appendix  to  the  report  reached  Mr.  Forsyth.*  For 
some  days,  those  in  Congress  who  were  most  interested  in  bound- 
ary matters  had  been  busy  with  the  endeavor  to  send  to  the  dis- 
puted territory  a United  States  commission  for  the  purpose  of 
exploration  and  survey,  having  in  view,  evidently,  the  work  of 
the  British  surveyors  just  mentioned.  Shortly  after  the  middle 
of  July,  and  near  the  close  of  the  first  session  of  the  twenty-sixth 
Congress,  a bill  was  passed  authorizing  the  president  to  appoint 
such  a commission.  Although  the  Mudge-Featherstonhaugh  re- 
port had  not  been  accepted  by  the  British  government,  it  was 
regarded  as  highly  important  that  an  added  survey,  by  American 
officials,  should  also  be  made.'*  July  25th,  Mr.  Forsyth  informed 
Mr.  Fox  that  the  president,  in  accordance  with  this  action  of  Con- 
gress, had  appointed  Mr.  James  Renwick,  Mr.  Parker  Cleveland 
and  Captain  Andrew  Talcott,  as  commissioners  for  the  purpose  of 
making  a topographical  survey  of  various  parts  of  the  disputed 
territory  and  the  adjoining  country,  for  the  information  and  use 
of  the  United  States  government.  The  commissioners,  with  a 

'^The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.  Boston,  Little  & Brown,  1851,  V,  91,  92. 

"^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  597. 

^Senate  Document,  No.  274,  29th  Congress,  First  Session,  2. 

"^Congressional  Globe,  26th  Congress,  First  Session,  July  8,  1840,  514. 


PROJECTS  AND  COUNTER-PROJECTS. 


297 


proper  number  of  assistants,  were  to  meet  in  Portland  early  in 
August,  and  thence,  separated  into  field  parties,  they  were  to 
proceed  to  the  scene  of  the  surveys  for  the  performance  of  the 
duties  to  which  they  had  been  assigned.^ 

Evidently  this  action  of  the  United  States  Senate  with  reference 
to  an  added  survey  had  been  anticipated  by  the  British  govern- 
ment; for  three  days  later,  July  28,  1840,^  Mr.  Fox  laid  before  the 
secretary  of  state  the  draft  of  a convention  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments for  the  appointment  of  two  commissions;  one  to  explore 
and  survey  the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and  the 
British  provinces  of  New  Brunswick  and  Canada,®  and  to  deter- 
mine and  lay  down  the  boundary  in  conformity  with  the  treaty  of 
1783;  the  other  to  arbitrate  on  those  matters  with  respect  to  which 
the  first  commission  might  be  unable  to  come  to  a decision. 

Several  minor  points  of  detail  were  mentioned  by  Mr.  Fox,  in 
which  the  British  draft  now  offered  differed  from  the  counter- 
draft proposed  by  the  United  States  in  the  preceding  year.  Three 
passages  in  that  counter-draft  are  noticed,  which  the  British  gov- 
ernment regarded  as  altogether  inadmissable.  The  first  was  in 
that  part  of  the  preamble  in  which  the  contracting  parties  were 
made  jointly  to  affirm  that  the  line  of  boundary  claimed  by  the 
United  States  corresponds  with  the  words  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  that  the  line  claimed  by  Great  Britain  does  not;  the  words 
being  these:  “the  United  States  claiming,  as  the  position  of  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  a point  due  north  of  the  river  St . 
Croix  on  the  highlands  lying  north  of  the  river  St.  John,  and 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  river 

'^Senate  Document  No.  274,  29th  Congress,  First  Session,  V,  2,  3. 

^On  the  same  date,  Mr.  Fox  informed  Mr.  Forsyth  of  the  arrival  at  Hali- 
fax from  England  of  Lieutenant  Broughton  and  Mr.  James  Featherstonhaugh, 
for  the  purpose  of  completing  the  survey  and  exploration  made  in  the  pre- 
ceding year  by  Colonel  Mudge  and  Mr.  G.  W.  Featherstonhaugh. 

®By  an  act  of  the  British  Parliament,  July  23,  1840,  the  provinces  of  Upper 
and  Lower  Canada  were  united  so  as  to  form  one  province  for  the  purpose  of 
executive  government  and  legislation,  and  for  the  government  of  Canada. 
British  and  Foreigri  State  Papers,  1840,  41,  42. 


298 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  ocean;  and 
Great  Britain  claiming,  as  the  position  of  said  northwest  angle  of 
Nova  Scotia,  a point  on  a highland  called  Mars  Hill,  lying  south 
of  the  river  St.  John,  and  dividing  those  waters  which  empty 
themselves  into  the  river  St.  John  from  those  which  fall  into  the 
Atlantic  Ocean.” 

Such  a statement  of  the  British  claim  at  once  revealed  the  diffi- 
culty the  British  found  in  making  it  harmonize  at  all  with  the 
description  of  the  boundary  as  given  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and 
the  effect  it  would  have,  if  it  was  allowed  to  stand,  was  easily  dis- 
coverable. The  second  passage  occurred  in  a statement  in  the 
tenth  article  of  the  American  draft  of  1839,  in  which  it  was  pro- 
posed that  Mitchell’s  map  should  be  acknowledged  as  a document 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  boundary.  It  had  grossest  errors, 
it  was  said,  and  was  not  referred  to  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  The 
third  passage  to  which  objection  was  made  was  in  the  fourteenth 
article,  where  it  was  implied,  it  was  said,  that  agents  of  the  two 
governments  should  accompany  the  commissioners  for  the  pur- 
pose of  giving  explanations  on  behalf  of  the  respective  parties. 
No  such  agents  were  necessary,  and  Great  Britain  could  not  con- 
sent to  such  an  arrangement.  The  draft  of  convention  now 
offered  by  Great  Britain  provided  that  the  commission  should 
meet  at  Quebec,  and  that  it  should  commence  its  labors  of  explo- 
ration at  the  head  of  the  Connecticut  river. ^ 

On  August  13th,  in  replying  to  Mr.  Fox’s  communication  of 
July  28th,  Mr.  Forsyth  submitted  a draft,  very  largely  in  the  same 
language  as  that  presented  by  the  British  government.  In  both 
documents  the  words  of  the  preamble  were  identical.  With 
regard  to  the  first  of  the  three  passages  in  the  American  counter- 
project of  the  preceding  year,  to  which  Great  Britain  made  objec- 
tion, Mr.  Forsyth  only  remarked  that  it  was  intended  merely  as 
a statement  of  what  was  in  fact  understood  to  be  the  claims  of 

^Senate  Document  No.  274,  29th  Congress,  First  Session,  V,  3-12.  The 
British  draft  of  convention,  inclosed  in  Mr.  Fox’s  letter,  is  printed  in  full  in 
connection  with  the  letter. 


PROJECTS  AND  COUNTER-PROJECTS. 


299 


the  respective  parties;  but  the  United  States  had  no  objection 
to  the  substitution  of  a general  description  of  the  line  as  pro- 
posed in  the  British  draft.  As  to  the  second  passage,  relating  to 
Mitchell’s  map,  it  was  not  perceived  how  its  value  could  be  denied 
either  upon  diplomatic  or  scientific  grounds,  or  how  there  could 
be  any  denial  as  to  its  bearing  upon  the  question  to  be  decided; 
and  under  this  view  of  the  matter  the  president  presumed  that 
the  British  government  would  allow  the  article  to  stand.  With 
respect  to  the  third  passage  to  which  objection  was  made  the 
president  acquiesced  in  its  omission. 

With  reference  to  the  meeting  place  of  the  commission  of  sur- 
vey, the  president  saw  no  particular  benefit  from  the  proposed 
change  to  Quebec,  the  proposition  in  the  American  counter- 
project that  the  meeting  should  be  in  Boston  having  been  copied 
from  the  first  British  draft.  A few  other  minor  changes  were 
made  and  two  additional  articles  were  inserted,  with  the  view  of 
ascertaining  the  possibility  of  terminating  in  the  shortest  possible 
time  a long  protracted  and  vexatious  dispute.  In  both  of  these 
articles,  the  interests  of  the  State  of  Maine  in  the  settlement  of 
the  boundary  controversy  were  recognized.  The  two  articles 
were  as  follows: 

“ARTICLE  XVI. 

“It  being  possible,  and,  if  so,  highly  desirable,  that  a conventional  line 
may  be  agreed  upon  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  the  parties  in  interest, 
and  the  necessity  of  a final  umpirage  of  their  conflicting  claims  he  thereby 
superseded,  it  is  with  that  view  agreed  by  the  immediate  parties  to  this  con- 
vention, that  it  shall  be  at  the  option  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  appoint,  in 
such  manner  as  her  Leg^islature  shall  direct,  two  commissioners,  who  shall 
be  associated  with  the  board  of  commissioners  of  exploration  hereby  estab- 
lished, for  the  purpose  of  making,  recei\dng,  discussing  and  settling,  in 
conjunction  with  the  said  board,  propositions  for  the  establishment  of  a con- 
ventional line  upon  the  territory  in  dispute  between  the  United  States  and 
her  Majesty’s  colonies,  but  for  no  other  purpose. 

“ARTICLE  XVII. 

“It  is  further  provided,  that  if  the  commissioners  appointed  under  this 
convention  shall  be  able,  in  conjunction  with  those  appointed  by  the  State  of 
Maine,  to  agree  on  a line  upon  the  territory  hereinbefore  described  which 
shall  be  satisfactory  to  the  governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Brit- 


300 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ain,  and  also  to  the  State  of  Maine,  and  her  assent  to  the  same  be  given  in 
such  manner  as  her  legislature  shall  direct,  at  any  time  before  a final  deci- 
sion is  made  in  the  matter  by  the  umpires  hereby  created,  that  then,  and  in 
such  case,  the  governments  of  the  United  States  and  her  Britannic  Majesty 
will  carry  such  agreement  into  full  effect,  and  solemnly  and  finally  ratify  the 
same.”  ^ 

Mr.  Fox,  August  17,  1840,  informing  Mr.  Forsyth  of  his  recep- 
tion of  the  latter’s  letter  of  the  13th,  and  of  the  new  convention 
draft  proposed  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  expressed 
regret  at  the  modifications  and  changes  introduced;  and  while  he 
had  lost  no  time  in  forwarding  the  documents  to  his  home  gov- 
ernment, it  was  not  with  the  expectation  that  the  terms  of  the 
convention  now  offered  would  meet  with  the  approval  of  that 
government.  However,  it  was  satisfactory  to  find  that  the  points 
of  difference  between  the  two  drafts  had  been  brought  within  a 
narrower  compass  than  hitherto,  and  relate  chiefly  to  details  and 
not  to  principles.^ 

In  this  counter-project  much  had  been  conceded  to  Great  Brit- 
ain by  the  United  States  in  abandoning  the  strong  position  that 
the  line  described  in  the  treaty  of  1783  could  and  should  be  deter- 
mined as  the  boundary,  and  in  admitting  the  possibility  and  con- 
sequent desirability  of  agreeing  upon  a conventional  line  for  the 
purpose  of  reaching  a speedy  and  final  settlement  of  the  bound- 
ary controversy.  But,  notwithstanding  this  concession,  the  fact 
remained  that  the  consent  of  Maine  was  made  necessary  to  any 
such  settlement;  and  the  British  minister,  from  this  point  of  view, 
might  well  regard  the  outlook  for  the  British  acceptance  of  the 
counter-project  as  exceedingly  unfavorable.  Maine  had  mani- 
fested no  disposition  to  accept  a conventional  line. 

In  another  letter,  June  22,  1840,  Mr.  Fox  invited  the  attention 
of  the  United  States  government  to  the  expediency  of  providing 
against  the  danger  of  local  collisions  in  the  disputed  territory 

^For  Mr.  Forsyth’s  letter  of  August  13,  1840,  and  the  American  convention 
draft  in  full,  see  Senate  Documeyit  No.  27i,  29th  Congress,  First  Session,  V, 
13-20. 

*Ib. , 24th  Congress,  First  Session,  V,  20,  21. 


PROJECTS  AND  COtJNTER-PROJECTS. 


301 


during  the  pending  negotiations;  and  he  inclosed  a memorandum 
suggesting  that  each  party  should  be  placed  as  nearly  as  was 
possible  in  the  situation  in  which  it  stood,  when  the  agreement 
between  Governor  Fairfield  and  Sir  John  Harvey  was  made  in  the 
spring  of  1839,  “care  being  taken,  however,  to  supply  the  defi- 
ciency which  has  been  found  to  exist  in  that  agreement  with 
respect  to  their  existing  limits  of  possession  and  jurisdiction,  and 
also  to  obtain  the  guaranty  of  the  general  government  for  the  due 
execution  of  the  conditions.  The  limits  and  terms  of  possession 
and  jurisdiction  were  understood  by  the  British  authorities  to  be, 
‘that  the  civil  posse  oi  Maine  should  retain  possession  of  the  valley 
of  the  Aroostook,  the  British  denying  their  right;  the  British 
authorities  retaining  possession  of  the  valley  of  the  upper  St. 
John,  Maine  denying  their  right.’  ” This  would  require  first 
that  the  State  of  Maine  should  withdraw  from  the  post  occupied 
by  it  on  the  Fish  River;  second,  that  all  movements,  beyond 
these  limits,  of  armed  forces  on  either  side,  whether  of  regulars, 
militia,  or  armed  posse,  should  cease,  as  well  as  the  erection  of 
strong  buildings  and  the  cutting  of  roads;  and  third  that  com- 
missioners should  be  named  by  the  two  governments,  to  see  that 
these  conditions  were  duly  carried  into  effect.^ 

Reference  should  be  made  here  to  the  report  of  the  commission- 
ers appointed  by  the  president  to  explore  and  survey  the  disputed 
territory  in  accordance  with  the  action  of  Congress  in  July,  1840. 
There  was  a change  in  the  membership  of  the  commission  as 
announced  by  the  secretary  of  state,  two  appointments  having 
been  declined;  and  the  party,  as  finally  made  up,  consisted  of 
James  Ren  wick,  James  D.  Graham  and  Andrew  Talcott.  The 
commissioners  assembled  in  Portland,  and  left  there  in  detach- 
ments on  August  26th  and  27th.  Some  time  was  required  for 
securing  assistants,  guides  and  provisions  at  Augusta  and  Bangor; 
but  knowing  the  importance  of  haste  in  order  to  reach  the  field  of 
their  operations  at  an  early  day,  the  parties  pressed  forward  with  all 
possible  dispatch.  The  boats  and  all  the  stores  were  at  Woodstock 

^Senate  Document  No.  274,  24th  Congress,  First  Session,  V,  21,  22. 


302 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


on  September  3rd,  and  at  Grand  Falls  on  the  8th.  Here,  there 
was  a further  division  of  the  company  into  four  detachments,  the 
first  to  proceed  down  the  Restigouche  to  the  tide  of  the  Bay  of 
Chaleurs;  the  second  to  ascend  the  Grande  Fourche  of  the  Resti- 
gouche  to  its  source;  the  third  to  make  its  way  to  a station  on 
Green  River;  the  fourth  to  convey  the  surplus  stores  and  heavy 
baggage  to  Rake  Temiscouata,  and  thence  to  ascend  the  Tuladi 
and  Abaquoquash  to  the  highest  accessible  point.  The  general 
rendezvous  was  fixed  at  Lake  Temiscouata.  The  several  detach- 
ments pressed  forward  energetically,  but  the  line  to  be  explored 
was  not  reached  until  September  22nd,  and  the  season  then  was 
too  far  advanced  for  effective  work.  Not  only  were  the  rivers  at 
their  lowest  depth,  but  ice  commenced  to  form  as  early  as  the 
12th  of  September  and  snow  fell  on  the  21st  and  22nd  of  Septem- 
ber. In  their  approach  to  the  disputed  territory,  the  members  of 
the  party  were  the  recipients  of  cordial  greetings  from  the  colonial 
officials,  a proclamation  of  Sir  John  Harvey  and  the  British  war- 
den, Colonel  MacLauchlan,  contributing  greatly  to  the  comfort  of 
the  commissioners  and  their  assistants. 

January  6,  1841,  the  commission  submitted  its  report^  to  the 
secretary  of  state  in  Washington.  It  added  little,  if  anything,  to 
what  had  already  been  ascertainad  by  earlier  explorers  and  sur- 
veyors. Deep  falls  of  snow  in  October  were  followed  by  deeper 
falls  in  November,  and  the  shortening  days  of  those  months  in 
the  wilderness,  traversed  under  these  circumstances,  made  prog- 
ress difficult.  The  principal  gain  obtained  in  this  exploration 
and  survey  was  the  confirmation,  by  men  of  experience  and  abil- 
ity, of  the  results  obtained  by  their  predecessors." 

^In  the  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  629-639,  the  report  of 
the  commissioners  is  printed  in  full. 

*In  the  season  of  1841,  the  commissioners  continued  their  work.  An  addi- 
tional report  was  presented  January  4,  1842.  Messsages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents,  IV,  92-97. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Both  Sides  Marking  Time. 

HUS  matters  stood  at  the  close  of  1840.  In  his  message  to 
Congress,  December  5th,  President  Van  Buren  thus  de- 
scribed existing  conditions  with  reference  to  boundary 
concerns  at  that  time;  “The  excitement  which  grew  out 
of  the  territorial  controversy  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  having  in  a great  measure  subsided,  it  is  hoped  that  a 
favorable  period  is  approaching  for  its  final  settlement.  Both 
governments  must  now  be  convinced  of  the  dangers  with  which 
the  question  is  fraught,  and  it  must  be  their  desire,  as  it  is  their 
interest,  that  this  perpetual  cause  of  irritation  should  be  removed 
as  soon  as  practicable.  In  my  last  annual  message  you  were 
informed  that  the  proposition  for  a commission  of  exploration  and 
survey,  promised  by  Great  Britain,  had  been  received;  and  that  a 
counter-project,  including  also  a provision  for  the  certain  and 
final  adjustment  of  the  limits  in  dispute  was  then  before  the  Brit- 
ish government  for  its  consideration.  The  answer  of  that  govern- 
ment, accompanied  by  additional  propositions  of  its  own,  was 
received  through  its  minister  here  since  your  separation.  These 
were  promptly  considered;  such  as  were  deemed  correct  in  princi- 
ple and  consistent  with  a due  regard  to  the  just  rights  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  State  of  Maine  concurred  in;  and  the  rea- 
sons for  dissenting  from  the  residue,  with  an  additional  sugges- 
tion on  our  part,  communicated  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  Mr. 
Fox.  That  minister,  not  feeling  himself  sufficiently  instructed 
upon  some  of  the  points  raised  in  the  discussion,  felt  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  refer  the  matter  to  his  own  government  for  its  further 
decision.”  ‘ 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  603,  604. 


304 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


In  a later  period  of  the  controversy,  with  considerable  contempt 
for  such  international  shortcomings,  Mr.  Webster  remarked:  “A 
very  promising  condition  of  things  to  exist  fifty-seven  years  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  ! ’ ’ Evidently  there  was  need  of  some 
such  expression  of  strong,  dissatisfied  feeling.  Even  the  points 
most  recently  raised  in  connection  with  the  projects  and  counter- 
projects of  the  preceding  chapter  had  now  been  under  considera- 
tion for  some  time;  yet  the  president  had  no  other  word  as  to  the 
outlook  for  the  country  than  an  expression  of  hope  as  to  a 
“prompt  and  satisfactory  termination  of  the  negotiation.”  The 
fact  was,  however,  that  the  American  proposals  were  received  in 
England  as  Mr.  Fox  had  foreseen.  Ford  Palmerston  would  not 
notice  them  in  any  way,  and  gave  up  the  negotiation  in  apparent 
despair.  There  was  no  hope  of  doing  anything  with  the  Van 
Buren  government,  he  said.  Until  another  administration  should 
come  into  power,  nothing  could  be  accomplished.  That  day, 
however,  was  not  far  away.  General  Harrison  having  already  been 
elected  president  of  the  United  States.  But  Lord  Palmerston,  as 
well  as  President  Van  Buren,  was  about  to  retire  from  office,  yet 
only  four  days  before  the  British  premier’s  retirement,  he  pre- 
sented new  proposals  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  referring  to  these  pro- 
posals, said  they  were  to  this  effect:  that  commissioners  should  be 
nominated  on  both  sides;  that  they  should  attempt  to  settle  this 
long  disputed  question;  and  then,  if  that  attempt  should  fail,  the 
king  of  Prussia,  the  king  of  Sweden  and  the  king  of  Saxony  were 
to  be  called  in,  not  to  act  as  umpires,  but  each  to  name  an  expert 
in  science,  the  three  to  form  a commission  of  scientists  for  action 
as  arbitrators.  “Was  there  ever  a proposition  like  this,”  asked 
Sir  Robert,  “for  the  arrangement  of  a question  on  which  two 
countries  had  differed  for  fifty-eight  years?”  And  this,  he  said, 
was  proposed  after  the  failure  of  the  king  of  Holland  as  an  arbi- 
trator, and  after  the  failure  of  their  commission  of  exploration. 
The  three  kings  were  to  appoint  three  scientists,  foreign  profess- 
ors, one  from  Prussia,  one  from  Sardinia  and  one  from  Saxony! 


BOTH  SIDES  MARKING  TIME. 


305 


To  do  what  ? Where  were  they  to  meet  ? How  were  they  to 
come  to  a satisfactory  agreement  ? Any  such  proposal,  Sir  Robert 
considered  unworthy  of  consideration. 

Mr.  Webster,  also,  had  his  amusement  over  Lord  Palmerston’s 
proposal,  “it  was  asked  in  the  House  of  Commons,  not  inaptly,” 
he  said,  “What  would  the  people  of  Maine  think,  when  they 
should  read  that  they  were  to  be  visited  by  three  learned  foreign- 
ers, one  from  Prussia,  one  from  Saxony  and  one  from  Sardinia? 
To  be  sure,  what  would  they  think,  when  they  should  see  three 
learned  foreign  professors,  each  speaking  a different  language,  and 
none  of  them  the  English  or  American  tongue,  among  the  swamps 
and  morasses  of  Maine  in  summer,  or  wading  through  the  snows 
of  winter— on  the  Allegash,  the  Magaguadavic,  or  among  the 
moose  and  deer,  on  the  precipitous  and  lofty  shores  of  Pohenaga- 
mook, — and  for  what?  To  find  where  the  division  was  between 
Maine  and  New  Brunswick,  instructing  themselves  by  these  labors, 
that  they  might  repair  to  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  and  there  hold 
solemn  and  scientific  arbitration  on  the  question  of  a boundary 
line  in  one  of  the  deepest  wildernesses  of  North  America!”  ^ 

Edward  Kent  again  became  governor  of  Maine  at  the  opening 
of  1841.^  In  his  reference  to  boundary  matters  in  his  annual  mes- 
sage to  the  Legislature,  he  was  not  as  hopeful  of  a speedy  and 
satisfactory  settlement  as  was  President  Van  Buren.  He  said: 
“The  arrangement  assented  to  on  the  part  of  Maine  in  1839,  by 
which,  on  condition  that  Maine  should  remain  in  undisputed  pos- 
session of  part  of  the  territory,  it  was  stipulated  that  we  should 
not  ‘attempt  to  disturb  by  arms  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick 
in  the  possession  of  the  Madawaska  settlements,’  was  acquiesced  in 
by  the  people  only  on  the  ground  and  the  belief  that  immediate 
and  determined  efforts  were  to  be,  in  good  faith,  adopted  by  both 
general  governments,  to  bring  the  matter  to  a speedy,  just  and 
final  determination.  Indulging  such  hopes,  Maine  has  certainly 

'^The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.  Boston,  Little  & Brown,  V,  95,  96. 

®The  vote  was  a very  close  one.  Edward  Kent,  Whig,  received  45,574 
votes,  and  John  Fairfield,  Democrat,  45,507. 


20 


306 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


yielded  much  in  the  matter  of  temporary  arrangements  influenced 
by  the  wish  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country  and  to  remove  all 
obstacles  to  the  progress  of  negotiation.  But  she  has  a right  to 
ask,  when  she  yields  so  much,  that  her  motives  should  be  appre- 
ciated and  her  cause  become  the  cause  of  the  whole  country  and 
pressed  with  vigor  and  energy  to  a final  settlement.  In  the  mean^ 
time  it  is  our  duty  to  keep  our  eyes  and  our  thoughts  upon  the 
starting  point  of  the  treaty — the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia 
and  the  highlands  from  thence  so  plainly  specified  in  the  treaty,  and 
not  suffer  ourselves  to  be  drawn  away  into  discussions,  whether 
the  monument  at  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix,  which  was  located 
by  both  governments  more  than  forty  years  since  and  is  fully 
established,  is  at  the  true  point;  or  whether  it  is  not  possible  that 
antediluvian  mountains  existed,  which,  by  some  geological  process 
have  become  abraded  and  worn  down,  and  have  now  become  the 
beds  of  large  rivers.  The  face  of  the  earth,  as  it  existed  in  the 
year  of  our  Tord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-three,  is 
to  determine  the  location  of  the  highlands  of  the  treaty;  and  the 
mere  speculations  of  self-styled  geologists  concerning  imaginary 
or  theoretical  highlands,  which  probably  never  had  existed  except 
in  the  fancies  of  speculative  theorists,  cannot  fairly  and  legiti- 
mately have  the  slightest  influence  upon  the  pending  question, 
more  especially  when,  if  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  the  assumed 
line  now  exists,  it  would  not  answer  any  of  the  requirements  of 
the  treaty.” 

In  these  words  addressed  to  the  Legislature,  there  was  certainly 
no  indication  that  Maine  was  prepared  to  withdraw  from  the  posi- 
tion she  had  hitherto  found  a veritable  stronghold,  namely,  the 
boundary  description  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  Nor  was  it  easy  for 
Governor  Kent  to  indulge  the  hope  of  a speedy  and  satisfactory 
settlement  of  the  differences  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  as  expressed  by  the  president  in  his  message.  Past  delays 
and  lessons  of  experience  learned  in  connection  with  the  assertion 
of  the  growing  claims  of  Great  Britain,  and  which  had  become  in- 
creasingly irritating,  could  have  no  other  effect  than  to  moderate 


BOTH  SIDES  MARKING  TIME. 


307 


such  hopes  very  considerably.  But,  as  the  governor  knew,  the 
president  was  in  a position  from  which  he  had  an  opportunity  for 
obtaining  larger  information,  and  he  added:  “if,  however,  the 
president  has  cause  to  say  that  there  is  an  undoubted  disposition 
of  both  parties,  to  bring  the  matter  to  an  early  conclusion,  we 
may,  without  the  charge  of  being  too  sanguine  in  our  anticipa- 
tions, confidently  trust  that  a fair,  equal  and  honorable  proposition 
for  a commission,  with  final  power  to  end  the  dispute,  will  be 
readily  and  fully  assented  to  by  the  English  government,  unless 
there  is  a fixed  determination  on  its  part  to  bring  the  matter  to 
the  last  resort  of  nations.  The  time  cannot  be  far  distant,  when 
the  question  must  assume  a more  definite  shape,  either  peaceable 
or  warlike;  and  much  as  we  may  deprecate  the  awful  evils  and 
miseries  of  war,  we  ought  to  be  prepared  to  meet  the  issue  (if 
such,  after  all,  is  the  determination  of  our  opponents)  with  the 
firmness  of  men,  who  feel  that  they  have  the  right,  and  who  will 
not  yield,  to  threats  or  force,  the  inheritance  of  our  fathers  and 
the  rightful  territory  of  our  State.’’  ^ 

So  much  of  Governor  Kent’s  message  as  referred  to  the  boundary 
controversy,  also  the  message  of  the  late  governor  communicating 
his  recent  correspondence  with  the  lieutenant  governor  of  New 
Brunswick  and  the  president  of  the  United  States,  together  with 
the  resolution  of  the  Legislatures  of  Indiana,  Alabama  and  Mary- 
land, relating  to  the  boundary  controversy,  were  referred  by  the 
Legislature  of  Maine  to  a joint  select  committee,  which  on  March 
30th  presented  an  extended  report,  prepared  by  its  chairman,  Mr. 
Charles  S.  Daveis,  of  Portland.  Mr.  Daveis  had  been  familiar 
with  the  progress  of  the  controversy  from  the  time  when  Maine 
assumed  her  place  in  the  Federal  Union,  and  had  made  a very 
careful  study  of  the  history  of  the  controversy  from  the  begin- 
ning. His  report  was  largely  a vindication  of  the  justice  of 
Maine’s  contention,  having  regard  both  to  rights  and  principles, 
also  to  the  course  which  the  state  authorities  had  pursued  and  the 
position  which  they  still  maintained,  solicitous  only  that  Maine 


^Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  667,  668. 


308 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


should  enjoy  the  territorial  advantages  which  the  laws  of  nature 
and  of  nations  had  secured  to  her. 

But  what  of  the  future?  it  was  asked.  Two  orders,  one  from 
the  House  of  Representatives  and  one  from  the  Senate,  had  been 
referred  to  the  committee.  One  suggested  that  the  executive 
authority  of  the  state  should  be  employed  to  expel  the  increased 
British  force  quartered  upon  Maine  territory.  The  other  proposed 
that  the  state  should  invoke  attention  to  the  constitutional  obliga- 
tion of  the  general  government,  and  call  upon  the  president  of  the 
United  States  for  the  prompt  fulfillment  of  this  obligation.  In 
the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  state  “would  be  untrue  to  itself, 
insensible  to  its  own  character,  interest  and  honor,”  if  it  should 
“renounce  or  repudiate  the  position  in  which  it  was  involuntarily 
placed,”  under  the  necessity  and  duty  of  self-protection  imposed 
upon  it  by  foreign  aggression,  “it  would  be  forgetful  of  the 
illustrious  examples  of  virtue  and  patriotism,  which  were  ever 
before  the  eyes  of  our  cherished  and  lamented  Lincoln,^  to  dis- 
claim the  ground,  or  abandon  the  stand,  which  he  so  firmly  and 
intrepidly  took  upon  this  question.”  Because  of  existing  circum- 
stances, therefore,  and  as  the  case  now  stood,  the  committee 
deemed  it  wise  “to  continue  to  call  upon  the  general  government 
to  vindicate  and  maintain  the  rights  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  its 
indisputable  and  indefeasible  territory.”  In  fact,  it  would  be  un- 
grateful in  the  state,  now  that  her  cause  had  been  made  that  of 
the  nation,  to  pursue  any  other  course  at  present.  “As  we  value 
and  cherish  the  pledge  it  has  given  us,”  added  the  committee, 
“our  anxiety  should  be  to  avoid  anything  by  which  we  should 
forfeit  ‘our  title  to  its  protection.’  ” ^ 

But  in  the  meantime  what  was  to  be  the  state  of  the  disputed 
territory,  and  especially  of  that  portion  lying  north  of  the  St., 
John  River?  In  answering  this  question,  the  committee  could 
not  see  how  the  Legislature  could  take  any  other  attitude  than  in 
the  resolves  of  the  Legislature  of  1839,  namely,  for  Maine  (in  the 

^ Enoch  l/incoln,  governor  of  Maine,  1827-1829. 

“^Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  633,  634. 


BOTH  SIDES  MARKING  TIME. 


309 


same  earnest  desire  to  come  to  an  amicable  adjustment  of  existing 
differences  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain)  to  for- 
bear to  enforce  her  jurisdiction  in  the  disputed  territory,  so  far  as 
she  could  do  so  consistently  with  the  maintenance  of  her  previous 
resolves  for  the  protection  of  the  whole  territory  against  trespass 
and  devastation.  But  the  space  should  not  be  widened,  so  as  to 
extend  to  the  Fish  River,  or  upon  the  south  bank  of  the  St.  John 
above  the  western  bend.  Further,  Maine  could  not  consent  to 
any  change  in  the  character  of  that  possession,  as  from  civil  to 
military,  or  to  a change  made  to  assume  a permanent  form.  Her 
people  would  not  consent  to  it,  though  they  were  willing  to  pay 
any  reasonable  price  for  their  own  peace  and  for  the  peace  of  the 
country.  But  the  price  must  not  be  too  great;  and  the  report 
closed  with  the  stirring  words,  evidently  expressive  of  the  spirit 
not  only  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  but  of  their  constit- 
uents as  well:  “Maine  feels  herself,  unavoidably,  to  be  the  for- 
lorn hope  of  the  Union.  As  such  she  is  ready  to  go  forward  and 
to  pursue  the  path  that  lies  before  her.  As  such  she  is  prepared  to 
occupy  the  pass  to  which  she  may  be  directed,  to  present  her 
breast  as  a bulwark  for  the  country — and  of  those  of  her  brave 
and  beloved  sons,  the  self-devoted  band  that  shall  be  sent  upon 
this  service,  to  leave  the  writing  upon  the  soil,  in  the  best  blood 
of  the  state,  to  tell  the  country,  and  be  carried  back  to  the  capital, 
that  they  lie  there  in  obedience  to  its  laws.  ’ ' ^ 

The  committee  appended  to  their  report  some  resolves,  which 
were  adopted  by  the  Legislature.  In  them,  the  right  of  the  state 
to  the  whole  of  the  disputed  territory,  according  to  the  treaty  of 
1783  and  according  to  the  unanimous  resolutions  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  in  1838,  was  reaffirmed.  The  earnest  expec- 
tation of  the  Legislature  also  was  expressed  that  the  national  gov- 
ernment would  not  fail  speedily  to  vindicate  that  right  and  other 
rights  either  by  negotiation  or  by  arms;  and  to  this  end  all  the 
powers  and  resources  of  the  state  were  tendered  to  the  authorities 
in  Washington,  the  state,  through  its  legislators,  declaring  its 


'^Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  637. 


310  MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 

readiness  to  obey  the  will  and  call  of  the  country  to  occupy  any 
assigned  place  marked  out  for  it.  “This  state,”  the  resolves  con- 
tinued, “is  suffering  the  extreme  unresisted  wrong  of  British 
invasion,  begun  in  1839,  repeated  in  1840,  and  continued  to  this 
time,  in  violation  of  solemn  and  deliberate  pledges  from  abroad, 
guaranteed  by  our  own  executive  government;  ’ ’ and  the  president, 
the  report  continued,  was  “requested  and  called  upon  to  fulfill  the 
obligation  of  the  federal  constitution  by  causing  the  immediate 
removal  or  expulsion  of  the  foreign  invading  force,  now  stationed 
within  the  bounds  of  Maine;  and,  other  methods  failing,  to  cause 
military  possession  to  be  taken  of  the  disputed  territory.”  Nor 
was  this  all.  The  government  of  the  United  States  was  urged  to 
provide  for  the  future  protection  of  the  state  against  foreign 
aggression  by  the  establishment  upon  the  frontier  of  an  adequate 
military  force,  thus  relieving  the  state  from  its  present  heavy  bur- 
den in  maintaining  proper  defence.  There  was  also  need  that 
there  should  be  an  early  completion  of  the  work  of  the  commis- 
sion appointed  to  explore  and  trace  the  boundary  line  from  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  along  the  highlands  according  to 
the  treaty  of  1783.^ 

William  H.  Harrison,  who  succeeded  Martin  Van  Buren  as 
president  of  the  United  States,  was  inaugurated  March  4,  1841. 
In  his  inaugural  address  he  naturally  made  only  general  refer- 
ences to  the  country’s  foreign  relations;  but  he  let  it  be  known 
distinctly  to  the  people  of  other  countries,  as  well  as  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States,  that  if  the  interests  of  the  country  should 
be  threatened  by  any  foreign  “claim  or  pretension,”  nothing 
should  fail  to  receive  attention  and  support,  which  our  honor 
would  not  permit  us  to  yield.  “Uong  the  defender  of  my  coun- 
try’s rights  in  the  field,”  said  the  president,  “l  trust  that  my 
fellow  citizens  will  not  see  in  my  earnest  desire  to  preserve  peace 
with  foreign  powers  any  indication  that  their  rights  will  ever  be 
sacrificed,  or  the  honor  of  the  nation  tarnished,  by  any  admission 
on  the  part  of  their  chief  magistrate  unworthy  of  their  former 


^ Resolves  of  Maine,  IV,  637-639. 


BOTH  SIDES  MARKING  TIME. 


311 


glory.”  ^ With  such  purposes  in  view  President  Harrison  placed 
the  foreign  relations  of  the  country  in  the  care  of  Daniel  Webster 
as  secretary  of  state  for  the  United  States.  Mr.  Webster’s  recent 
words  of  criticism  in  the  Senate  as  to  past  failures  in  boundary 
negotiations  were  rightly  regarded  as  foreshadowing  his  own  pur- 
poses, and  awakened  strong  hopes  with  reference  to  boundary 
negotiations  in  the  immediate  future. 

On  Sunday  morning,  April  4th,  and  therefore  only  a month 
after  his  induction  into  office.  President  Harrison  died,  ‘‘in 
death,  as  in  life,”  wrote  Mr.  Webster  in  announcing  the  presi- 
dent’s death,  ‘‘the  happiness  of  the  country  was  uppermost  in 
his  thoughts.”  * 

'^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents , IV,  19. 

Ub.,  IV,  22. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


Webster’s  Proposal  Accepted. 

TR  nearly  half  a century  matters  relating  to  the  north- 
eastern boundary  had  been  under  consideration  b}*  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  But  the  controversy 
continued;  and  there  was  now  a strong  and  increasingly 
imperative  demand  for  its  speedy  settlement.  President  Harrison 
was  entirely  in  sympathy  with  this  demand.  President  Tyler, 
suddenly  coming  into  President  Harrison’s  place,  retained  Mr. 
Webster  at  the  head  of  the  state  department,  recognizing  Mr. 
Webster’s  eminent  fitness  for  such  a service.  For  some  time  the 
distinguished  Massachusetts  senator  had  been  conmnced  that  no 
settlement  of  the  boundary*  controversy*  could  be  secured  in  any 
other  way  than  by  compromise.  Early  in  1839,  having  heard 
that  President  Van  Buren  had  expressed  an  opinion  favorable  to 
sending  him  to  England  on  a special  mission  with  reference  to  a 
settlement  of  the  controversy,  Mr.  Webster  prepared  a memoran- 
dum stating  his  opinion  as  to  the  course  such  a minister  ought  to 
pursue.  Great  Britain,  he  thought,  would  not  gratuitously  yield 
her  pretensions.  Accordingly  something  must  be  juelded  by  the 
United  States,  and  he  regarded  a conventional  line  as  promising 
the  largest  hope  of  success.  Before  leaving  the  country,  he  said, 
such  a minister  should  have  an  interview  with  the  governor  of 
Maine  and  her  delegation  in  Congress.  They*  should  examine  the 
map  carefully  and  especially  they  should  be  called  on  to  say  what 
conventional  line  Maine  would  approve.  If  a conventional  line 
should  be  agreed  upon  in  London,  it  should  be  one  of  the  condi- 
tions of  the  convention  that  the  president’s  ratification  should  be 
postponed  until  Maine  had  given  her  consent.^ 

'^The  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster.  Van  Tj-ne,  1902,  217. 


Daxiel  Webster. 

From  portrait  in  the  State  Department  at  Washington 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


313 


Early  after  Mr.  Webster’s  appointment  as  secretary  of  state, 
Mr.  Fox,  who  was  still  the  British  minister  in  Washington,  was 
instructed  by  Lord  Palmerston  to  renew  his  efforts  to  have  the 
boundary  controversy  settled  by  arbitration.  Writing  to  Mr. 
Fox,  he  said,  “Let  us  consider  the  American  coutre  projet  as 
unreasonable,  undeserving  an  answer,  as  withdrawn  from  consid- 
eration, and  now  submit  my  original  projet  to  Mr.  Webster,  the 
new  secretary  of  state,  and  persuade  him  it  is  reasonable.” 

Although  Mr.  Webster  was  not  to  be  so  easily  persuaded  as 
Lord  Palmerston  desired,  he  did  hope  to  see  the  boundary  ques- 
tion settled  during  his  connection  with  the  state  department. 
But  it  must  be  rescued  from  the  labyrinth  of  projects  and  counter- 
projects in  which  it  had  become  involved.  “I  found  the  parties 
in  wandering  mazes  lost,”  he  said  later. ‘ “I  found  it  quite  as 
tedious  and  difficult  to  trace  the  thread  of  this  intricate  negotia- 
tion, as  it  would  be  to  run  out  the  line  of  the  highlands  itself. 
One  was  quite  as  full  as  the  other  of  deviations,  abruptnesses  and 
perplexities.  And  having  received  the  president’s  authority,  I 
did  say  to  Mr.  Fox,  as  has  been  stated  in  the  British  Parliament, 
that  I was  willing  to  attempt  to  settle  the  dispute  by  agreeing  on 
a conventional  line,  or  line  by  compromise.”  ^ 

But  a conventional  line  was  not  what  Maine  wanted.  Again 
and  again,  with  emphatic  reiteration,  she  had  insisted  on  the  line 
described  in  the  treaty  of  1783;  and  Mr.  Webster  was  very  well 
aware  of  the  difficulties  of  the  task  to  which  he  had  devoted  him- 
self. He  knew  it  was  a serious  matter  to  ask  Maine  to  come  into 
an  agreement  by  which  she  might  and  was  likely  to  subject  her- 
self to  the  loss  of  territory  which  she  regarded  as  clearly  her  own 
by  treaty  rights.  “The  question  touched  her  propriety  interests, 
and,  what  was  more  delicate,  it  touched  the  extent  of  her  juris- 
diction. I knew  well  her  extreme  jealousy  and  high  feeling  on 
this  point.  But  I believed  in  her  patriotism,  and  in  her  willing- 

^ This  was  in  the  summer  of  1841.  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.  Bos- 
ton, Little  & Brown,  1851,  VI,  270. 

°Ib.,  Boston,  Little  & Brown,  1851,  V,  97,  VI,  270. 


314 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ness  to  make  sacrifices  for  the  good  of  the  country.”  Accord- 
ingly, very  early,  Mr.  Webster  began  to  consider  means  for 
giving  influential  people  in  Maine  information  concerning  his 
plans  and  purposes  with  reference  to  a settlement  of  the  boundary 
controversy  on  the  basis  of  a compromise,  which  should  include 
not  only  an  exchange  of  territory  but  a pecuniary  indemnity. 

With  the  fall  of  the  Melbourne  ministry,  L,ord  Palmerston 
retired  from  ofiice  as  foreign  secretary,  and  Lord  Aberdeen  had 
now  taken  his  place,  with  Sir  Robert  Peel  as  prime  minister.  At 
this  time,  also,  Edward  Everett  was  the  American  minister  in 
London,  possessing,  as  may  well  be  believed,  the  fullest  informa- 
tion with  reference  to  Mr.  Webster’s  purposes  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  boundary  matters  were  to  be  taken  up  with  the  new 
British  ministry.  Both  parties’  therefore,  entered  into  negotia- 
tions with  reference  to  the  desired  settlement  under  the  most 
favorable  auspices;  and  before  the  end  of  1841,  Lord  Aberdeen 
informed  Mr.  Everett  that  his  government  had  decided  to  send 
Lord  Ashburton  to  the  United  States  as  a special  minister,  with 
full  powers  to  settle  the  boundary  controversy  and  any  other  mat- 
ters concerning  which  differences  existed  that  required  adjustment. 

December  15,  1841,  therefore  about  the  same  time  as  the  Ash- 
burton appointment  was  announced.  Governor  Kent  wrote  to  Mr. 
Webster  seeking  information  with  reference  to  boundary  matters. 
In  his  reply  Mr.  Webster  said  there  had  been  hardly  any  positive 
progress  during  the  year.  In  fact,  he  went  back  farther.  “Mr. 
Forsyth’s  counter-project,  delivered  in  August,  1840,”  he  wrote, 
“received  no  answer  until  just  before  Lord  Palmerston  went  out 
of  ofiice  in  August,  1841.  It  was  then  answered,  and  this  answer 
has  revived  the  subject;  and  other  correspondence  will  ere  long 
take  place  between  the  parties.  The  interest  of  both  parties 
undoubtedly  requires  a compromise,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  the 
position  which  Maine  has  assumed  is  the  only  obstacle  to  bringing 
such  a compromise  about.  The  English  government  cannot  treat 
with  us  about  a compromise,  unless  we  say  we  have  authority  to 
consummate  what  we  agree  to;  and  although  I entertain  not  the 


Webster’s  proposal  accepted. 


315 


slightest  doubt  of  the  just  authority  of  this  government  to  settle 
this  question  by  compromise,  as  well  as  in  any  other  way,  yet  in 
the  present  condition  of  affairs,  I suppose  it  will  not  be  prudent 
to  stir  in  the  direction  of  compromise  without  the  consent  of  the 

State  of  Maine Suppose  England  should  be  willing  to 

pay  for  the  land  north  of  the  river  [St.  John],  and  leave  the  ques- 
tion of  its  navigation  to  be  settled  hereafter;  or  suppose  she  should 
be  willing  to  let  our  line  run  from  the  monument  to  the  mouth  of 
Eel  river,  and  then  up  the  St.  John  and  so  through  the  lakes?  I 
should  be  very  glad  of  your  thought  on  these  and  all  other  points; 
but  incline  for  the  present  to  think,  with  you,  that  perhaps  the 
easiest  mode  of  getting  the  parties  together  for  a compromise  may 
be  the  creation  of  a commission.  I hope  this  may  be  done  this 
session  of  Congress.”  ^ 

But  Mr.  Webster’s  purposes  included  something  more  than 
Maine’s  acceptance  of  a boundary  settlement  on  the  basis  of  a 
conventional  line.  As  a matter  of  prime  importance  preceding 
the  conferences  that  would  follow  the  arrival  of  Lord  Ashburton 
in  Washington,  he  saw  the  necessity  of  obtaining  first  of  all  the 
definite  consent  of  Maine  to  his  plans  and  purposes.  With  this 
end  in  view  he  sought  first  of  all  the  assistance  of  Francis  O.  J. 
Smith,  of  Portland,  a former  member  of  Congress  from  Maine, 
who,  with  several  assistants,  interviewed  “leading  and  influential 
gentlemen  of  both  political  parties”  in  five  of  the  principal  coun- 
ties in  Maine. ^ Also,  early  in  1842,  he  had  an  interview  with  the 
two  senators  from  Maine,  Reuel  Williams  and  George  Evans,  to 
whom  he  freely  disclosed  his  matured  views.  Eater,  at  the 
White  House  with  the  president,  he  had  a second  interview  with 
Mr.  Williams.  Subsequently  Mr.  Williams  returned  to  Maine, 
probably  with  reference  to  boundary  matters  principally;  and  to 
him,  February  2,  1842,  Mr.  Webster  addressed  a letter  for  use  in 
his  conferences  there.  In  the  letter  he  referred  to  Lord  Ashbur- 

^The  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster.  Van  Tyne,  1902,  248,  249. 

^Letter  in  the  library  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  Box  IV,  Northeastern 
Boundary  Pamphlets. 


316 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ton’s  mission  to  this  country.  It  was  highly  probable,  Mr.  Web- 
ster said,  that  Lord  Ashburton  would  come  prepared  to  agree  to  a 
conventional  line  of  boundary  on  such  terms  and  conditions,  and 
with  such  compensations,  as  would  be  deemed  just  and  equitable. 
The  president,  therefore,  desired  that  the  attention  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Maine  should  early  be  turned  to  this  method  of  settle- 
ment, considering  whether  it  would  not  be  desirable  to  make 
Maine  a party  to  the  discussions  and  conclusions  connected  with 
the  negotiations.  A treaty  for  a conventional  line,  of  course, 
was  a matter  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain;  but 
during  the  negotiations,  agents,  or  commissioners  of  Maine,  might 
represent  her  interests  and  wishes,  with  the  understanding  that 
no  exchange  of  territory,  or  other  proceedings  to  make  a new 
line  by  agreement,  would  be  adopted  without  their  express  assent. 
The  presence  of  such  commissioners  in  the  conferences,  he  said, 
would  be  helpful  ‘ ‘as  they  would  be  possessed  of  the  fullest  local 
information,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  interests,  sentiments 
and  wishes  of  the  people  of  Maine.”  Any  arrangement,  there- 
fore, “entered  into  with  their  consent,  if  happily  such  an  arrange- 
ment could  be  made,  would  be  likely  to  give  satisfaction.”  ' 

Mr.  Williams,  accordingly,  was  asked  to  confer  with  Governor 
Fairfield  (who  had  now  succeeded  Governor  Kent)  and  others 
whose  opinions  he  might  wish  to  obtain.  In  fact,  he  said,  with 
the  president’s  approval  he  had  concluded  to  write  to  some  gen- 
tleman of  high  character  in  Maine,  such  as  Chief  Justice  Weston, 
inviting  him  to  come  to  Washington  and  confer  with  the  presi- 
dent and  the  state  department.  If  Judge  Weston’s  engagements 
would  not  allow  him  to  come,  any  other  gentleman,  whom  the 
governor  and  Mr.  Williams  might  select,  would  be  agreeable. 
“It  is  our  purpose,”  added  Mr.  Webster,  “to  put  the  questions 
in  the  fairest  manner  to  Maine,  whether  she  will  consent  to  be 
satisfied  with  a conventional  line  and  all  the  other  terms  and 

^Mr.  F.  O.  J.  Smith  was  in  Washington  at  this  time.  See  letter  from  him 
to  Hon.  J.  Smith,  of  the  Maine  Senate,  library  of  Maine  Historical  Society, 
Box  IV,  Northeastern  Boundary  Pamphlets. 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


317 


conditions,  which  commissioners  of  her  own  appointment  shall 

have  approved No  negotiations  for  such  a line  will  be 

opened,  or  entered  upon,  without  an  express  previous  consent  on 
the  part  of  Maine  to  acquiesce  in  any  line,  with  all  its  terms, 
conditions  and  compensations,  which  shall  have  been  thus  previ- 
ously approved.” ^ 

To  such  a proposal  Mr.  Webster  must  have  considered  a favor- 
able response  as  exceedingly  doubtful,  and  especially  because  of 
the  requirement  that  Maine,  in  advance  of  any  action  by  the  nego- 
tiators, should  agree  to  acquiesce  in  such  measures  and  terms  as 
should  receive  the  approval  of  her  commissioners.  The  proposal, 
however,  could  hardly  have  been  made  at  a better  opportunity 
for  Mr.  Webster’s  success  in  his  undertaking.  It  was  a time  of 
great  discouragement  in  Maine  with  reference  to  boundary  con- 
cerns. In  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature,  January  7,  1842, 
Governor  Fairfield  said  that  with  pain  and  mortification  he  found 
the  boundary  question  unsettled.^  The  mission  of  Mr.  Smith,  as 
the  representative  of  the  secretary  of  state,  afforded  no  other  hope 
of  settlement  than  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Webster.  On  February 
21,  1842,  Mr.  Williams  replied  to  Mr.  Webster’s  letter  of  the  2nd. 
He  was  fearful  that  an  objection  from  the  point  of  honor  and 
consistency  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  might  stand  in  the  way 
of  arriving  at  what  would  be  satisfactory  to  both  countries;  but 
on  the  whole  the  letter  brought  encouragement  to  Mr.  Webster. 

The  latter,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Williams,  expressed  regret  that 
Governor  Fairfield  and  his  friends  should  be  of  the  opinion 
that  such  points  as  he  had  mentioned  should  stand  in  the  way  of 
reaching  a settlement  satisfactory  on  both  sides  of  the  sea.  But  if 
Maine  was  confident  of  the  justice  and  validity  of  her  claims,  it 
was  equally  true  that  England,  also,  evinced  on  her  side  no  less 
confidence.  “Maine  thinks  that  England  has  interposed  an  insur- 
mountable claim  to  a portion  of  her  territory,  and  the  government 
of  the  United  States  thinks  Maine,  in  that  opinion,  is  entirely  right; 

^The  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster.  Van  Tyne,  1902,  256-258. 

"^Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  102. 


318 


JIAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


but  England  asserts,  on  the  other  side,  that  the  United  States  and 
Maine  have  interposed  an  insurmountable  claim  to  a portion 
of  her  territory;  and  these  conflicting  opinions  and  assertions  of 
right  must  be,  in  some  way,  settled  and  adjusted.  It  is  true  that 
England  occupies  or  protects  a part  of  the  disputed  territory  by 
armed  force;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  United  States  occupy 
and  protect  another  part  by  an  armed  force  also,  and  this  last 
force  was  placed  in  position  at  the  request  of  the  government  of 
Maine.  Indeed,  if  I remember  correctly,  Maine  assented  in  the 
year  1839,  that  the  question  of  possession  should  remain  as  it  then 
stood;  that  is,  that  Great  Britain  should  hold  one  part,  Maine  not 
acknowledging  her  right;  and  that  Maine  should  hold  another 
part,  England  not  acknowledging  her  right.  The  spirit  and  gen- 
eral principle  of  this  understanding  between  Maine  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  New  Brunswick  has  governed  the  conduct  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  in  all  subsequent  measures 
respecting  the  possession  of  the  disputed  territory;  the  principal 
alteration,  that  of  substituting  United  States  troops  for  the  posse 
of  Maine,  having  been  adopted,  as  I have  already  said,  at  the 
request  of  Maine.  I make  this  remark,  my  dear  sir,  with  no 
other  view  than  that  of  expressing  the  hope,  that  on  more  reflec- 
tion, and  upon  full  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances,  the 
government  of  Maine  may  not  find  any  obstacle  founded  on  con- 
siderations of  honor  or  consistency  from  concurring,  in  the  man- 
ner suggested  in  my  letter,  in  a proceeding,  having  in  view  the 
establishment  of  a conventional  line,  if  the  British  minister  should 
in  fact  bring  with  him  proper  authority  for  such  a purpose.”  * 

On  January  17,  1842,  accordingly  before  Mr.  Webster  com- 
menced this  confidential  correspondence,  resolutions  were  passed 
by  both  houses  of  the  Maine  Legislature  instructing  the  senators 
from  Maine  in  Congress  to  call  on  the  president  of  the  United 
States  for  information  with  reference  to  boundary  matters,  and 
requesting  copies  of  the  correspondence  concerning  such  matters 
as  had  passed  between  the  government  of  the  United  States  and 
that  of  Great  Britain  during  the  preceding  two  years.  The  reso- 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  260,  261. 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


319 


lutions  were  laid  before  the  president  on  February  22nd,  and  on 
the  same  day  the  secretary  of  state,  replying  for  the  president, 
made  answer  that  since  the  last  communication  on  the  subject  of 
the  boundary  question  no  correspondence  with  reference  to  it  had 
taken  place,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  president,  could  be 
made  public  without  prejudice  to  the  country’s  interest.  He 
desired  it  to  be  understood,  however,  that  his  most  earnest  efforts 
were  still  continued  to  hasten  a final  settlement  of  the  boundary 
question  to  a conclusion.^ 

If  the  members  of  the  Legislature  failed  to  get  the  correspond- 
ence for  which  they  asked,  they  did  not  fail  to  obtain  the  informa- 
tion contained  in  the  confidential  letters.  On  March  7th,  the 
joint  select  committee  of  the  Legislature,  of  which  Edward 
Kavanagh’  was  chairman,  referred  to  the  above  answer,  also  to 
Governor  Fairfield’s  reference  to  boundary  matters  in  his  mes- 
sage of  January  7th,  together  with  information  presented  by  the 
committee  to  the  Legislature  on  January  27th  concerning  certain 
measures  recently  adopted  by  Great  Britain  for  administering 
more  effectually  her  colonial  rule  throughout  her  North  American 
provinces;  and  the  report  closed  with  a reference  to  a public 
notice,  coming  in  a form  that  could  scarcely  admit  a doubt  of  its 
authenticity,  that  a special  minister  had  been  commissioned  by 
Great  Britain  with  full  power  to  discuss  and  adjust  all  questions 
of  controversy  with  the  United  States,  including  that  of  the 
boundary;  and  that  his  arrival  in  this  country  might  be  expected 
at  an  early  day.® 

The  arrival  of  Lord  Ashburton  in  this  country  was  mentioned 
in  the  Portland  Advertiser  of  April  8th.  He  came  in  the  British 
frigate  Warspite,*  and  landed  at  Annapolis,  Maryland,  after  a 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  88. 

^Mr.  Kavanagh,  as  president  of  the  Maine  Senate,  became  governor  of 
Maine  in  1843,  when  Governor  Fairfield  was  elected  a senator  of  the  United 
States. 

^ Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,90. 

* The  Warspite  was  commanded  by  Sir  John  Hay,  a name  that  was  to  have 
an  honorable  place  in  American  history  and  diplomacy  at  a later  period. 


320 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


voyage  of  fifty-two  days.  Proceeding  to  Washington  on  April 
4th,  he  was  presented  to  President  Tyler  on  April  6th.  Five  days 
later,  Mr.  Webster  wrote  to  Governor  Fairfield,  announcing  Lord 
Ashburton’s  arrival  and  informing  him  that  he  came  with  full 
powers  to  negotiate  and  settle  matters  in  dispute  between  the  two 
countries,  having  authority  also  to  treat  for  a conventional  line,  or 
line  by  agreement,  on  such  terms  and  conditions,  and  with  such 
mutual  considerations  and  equivalents,  as  might  be  thought  just 
and  equitable.  Under  these  circumstances,  said  Mr.  Webster, 
the  president  desires  the  co-operation  of  Maine  and  Massachusetts 
in  order  to  terminate  a controversy  too  long  continued,  and  which 
was  likely  to  be  further  protracted,  unless  a shorter  course  should 
be  adopted.  This,  however,  would  not  be  attempted  otherwise 
than  in  accordance  with  treaty  stipulations,  and  in  furtherance 
with  what  had  already  been  done.  Atter  mentioning  the  causes 
that  had  operated  against  previous  efforts  for  settling  the  bound- 
ary question,  and  reasserting  the  opinion  of  the  government  with 
reference  to  the  justice  and  validity  of  the  American  claim,  Mr, 
Webster  presented  the  president’s  proposal,  viz.,  “that  Maine 
and  Massachusetts  should  severally  appoint  a commissioner,  or 
commissioners,  empowered  to  confer  with  the  authorities  of  this 
government  upon  a conventional  line,  or  line  by  agreement,  with 
its  terms,  conditions,  considerations  and  equivalents,  with  an 
understanding,  that  no  such  line  will  be  agreed  upon  without  the 
assent  of  such  commissioner.”  Mr.  Webster  also  expressed  re- 
gret that  Lord  Ashburton  had  not  arrived  in  the  country  earlier, 
so  that  the  communication  from  the  secretary  of  state  could  have 
been  made  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Maine  and  Massachu- 
setts Legislatures.  The  proposed  action,  if  undertaken,  should 
be  concluded  before  the  present  session  of  Congress  should  termi- 
nate; and  the  letter  closed  with  these  words;  “These  considera- 
tions, in  addition  to  the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  a firm 
conviction  in  the  mind  of  the  president  that  the  interests  of  both 
countries,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  two  states  more  immedi- 
ately concerned,  require  a prompt  effort  to  bring  this  dispute  to 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


321 


an  end,  constrain  him  to  express  an  earnest  hope  that  your  excel- 
lency will  convene  the  Legislature  of  Maine,  and  submit  the  sub- 
ject to  its  grave  and  candid  deliberation.”  ^ 

This  letter,  of  course,  was  not  unexpected.  Mr.  F.  O.  J. 
Smith’s  activities  in  Maine,  and  Mr.  Webster’s  correspondence 
with  Senator  Williams,  had  made  known  to  Governor  Fairfield,  and 
prominent  members  of  both  political  parties  in  Maine,  the  views 
of  the  government  in  Washington  with  reference  to  boundary 
matters.  In  fact,  the  Portland  Advertiser  on  April  9th  had  in- 
serted in  its  columns  an  item  from  the  Bangor  Whig  calling  the 
attention  of  its  readers  to  a rumor  in  the  region  of  the  state  cap- 
ital that  Governor  Fairfield  would  probably  have  to  convene  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  in  the  summer  to  act  upon  propositions 
connected  with  the  boundary  and  the  mission  of  Lord  Ashburton. 
Referring  to  this  citation,  the  Advertiser  in  an  editorial  comment 
remarked:  “The  question  of  summoning  our  own  Legislature  to 
a special  session  will  be  addressed,  if  at  all,  entirely  to  the  discre- 
tion of  Governor  Fairfield.  He  will  be  under  no  other  obligation 
in  the  case,  than  in  reference  to  any  other  contingency  which 
might  require  the  extraordinary  interposition  of  the  legislative 
department.”  * 

Similar  comments  appeared  in  other  papers,  and  it  may  be 
inferred  that  Mr.  Webster’s  proposals,  in  one  way  or  another, 
had  now  reached  so  wide  a circle,  and  had  been  so  favorably 
received,  that  it  seemed  quite  probable  that  the  people  of  Maine 
would  sustain  the  governor  and  the  Legislature  in  such  action  as 
Mr.  Webster  had  suggested. 

Governor  Fairfield’s  proclamation,  calling  a special  session  of 
the  Legislature  on  May  18,  1842,  appeared  on  April  29th.  Two 
days  before  the  opening  of  the  session  Mr.  Webster’s  letter  to 
Governor  Fairfield  was  printed  in  the  Portland  Advertiser  and  in 
other  Maine  papers  about  the  same  time.  In  a message  to  the 
Legislature  on  the  18th,  having  laid  Mr.  Webster’s  communica- 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  128-130. 

*Tlie  Portland  Advertiser , April  18,  1842. 

21 


322 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


tion  before  the  members  of  both  houses,  Governor  Fairfield  said 
that  notwithstanding  the  expense  of  the  extra  session  at  a busy- 
season  of  the  year,  he  had  not  thought  it  right  to  withhold  from 
the  people  of  Maine  an  opportunity,  through  the  Legislature,  to 
entertain  and  decide  matters  of  such  great  importance.  The 
question  presented  for  consideration  was  not  a party  question,  but 
one  in  which  the  whole  state  was  interested — one  not  free  from 
embarrassment  and  difiiculties,  yet  one  that  should  have  a calm, 
dispassionate  consideration. 

It  was  understood,  the  governor  said,  that  the  British  govern- 
ment was  prepared  to  propose  what  is  called  “a  just  and  equita- 
ble equivalent”  for  a portion  of  the  disputed  territory  she  had 
heretofore  claimed  as  her  own.  This  was  not  going  as  far,  he 
stated,  as  some  would  deem  the  honor  of  the  state  required; 
though  it  was  a far  less  objectionable  proposal  than  most  of  those 
Maine  had  received  from  that  quarter.  If  Great  Britain  was  now 
prepared  substantially  to  yield  the  point  of  title,  and  offer  an 
equivalent  in  other  territory,  privileges  of  navigation,  etc.,  for  a 
portion  of  Maine’s  territory,  as  the  governor  was  then  prepared 
to  believe,  he  did  not  see  why  the  vexed  question  that  had  given 
the  two  countries  so  much  trouble  should  not  now  be  settled  sat- 
isfactorily. He  accordingly  thought  favorably  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  commissioners  by  the  Legislature,  with  such  powers  as  a 
just  view  of  the  case  would  seem  to  require,  and  this  he  recom- 
mended.^ 

Mr.  Webster  was  well  represented  in  Augusta  at  this  time. 
Peleg  Sprague  of  Boston,  a judge  of  the  United  States  District 
Court,  and  a former  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  from 
Maine,  was  there.  Alfred  Smith,  a former  member  of  Congress 
from  Maine  and  a man  of  large  influence  in  the  state,  mingled 
freely  among  the  members  of  the  Legislature.  Jared  Sparks, 
afterward  president  of  Harvard  College,  was  also  in  Augusta. 
While  pursuing  historical  researches  in  the  French  archives  in 
Paris  in  the  earlier  part  of  that  year  he  had  found  a letter  from 

'^Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  124-127. 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


323 


Dr.  Franklin  to  Count  de  Vergennes,  dated  “Passay,  6 December, 
1782,”  in  which  Franklin  had  inclosed  a map  on  which  the  count 
had  asked  him  to  mark  the  boundary  agreed  upon  by  the  nego- 
tiators of  the  recent  treaty  of  peace  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States.  In  his  note,  Franklin  stated  that  on  this  map 
he  had  “marked  with  a strong  red  line”  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  as  settled  in  the  treaty.  As  this  letter  was  written  within 
six  days  after  the  preliminaries  were  signed,  Mr.  Sparks  inferred 
that  if  he  could  find  that  map,  he  would  have  conclusive  evidence 
“as  to  the  meaning  afl&xed  by  the  commissioners  to  the  language 
of  the  treaty  on  the  subject  of  the  boundaries.”  He  commenced 
at  once,  therefore,  a search  for  the  map,  and  with  the  aid  of  the 
keeper  he  found  a map  of  North  America  by  D’Anville,  dated 
1746,  on  which  had  been  drawn  a strong  red  line,  throughout  the 
entire  boundary  of  the  United  States,  and  answering  precisely  to 
Franklin’s  description.  To  his  great  surprise,  the  north  line  of 
the  eastern  boundary,  after  leaving  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix 
River,  stopped  far  short  even  of  Mars  Hill,  turning  westward  and 
leaving  on  the  British  side  not  only  the  St.  John  River,  but  “all 
the  streams  which  flow  into  the  St.  John,”  making  it  evident 
that  the  line  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  Canadian  highlands  was 
“intended  to  exclude  all  the  waters  running  into  the  St.  John.” 
Although  there  was  no  proof  that  this  map  was  the  one  marked 
by  Franklin,  “yet  upon  any  other  supposition,”  Mr.  Sparks 
thought,  “it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  the  circumstances  of  its 
agreeing  so  perfectly  with  his  description  and  of  its  being  pre- 
served in  the  place  where  it  would  naturally  be  deposited  by 
Count  de  Vergennes.”  ^ 

Although  this  red  line  map  was  unauthenticated,  and  was 
adverse  to  the  claim  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Sparks  deemed  it 
his  duty  to  inform  Mr.  Webster  of  his  discovery,  designating  it  as 
“curious  if  not  valuable.”  Mr.  Webster  at  once  recognized  the 
usefulness  of  the  map  in  his  endeavor  to  secure  the  consent  of 
the  Maine  Legislature  to  his  plans  for  the  settlement  of  the  bound- 

^Lije  and  Writings  of  Jared  Sparks,  by  Herbert  B.  Adams,  II,  395,  396. 


324 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ary  controversy.  In  this  Augusta  visit,  Mr.  Sparks  had  with  him 
his  copy  of  the  map,  showed  it  to  Governor  Fairfield,  and  to  prom- 
inent members  of  the  legislature.  The  governor’s  message  and 
Mr.  Webster’s  letter  were  referred  to  a joint  committee  of  the 
Legislature,  which  on  May  20th  presented  a report,  accompanied 
by  resolutions  providing  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners, 
empowered  to  give  the  assent  of  the  State  of  Maine  to  any  con- 
ventional line,  provided  such  compensations  were  offered  as  they 
should  deem  consistent  with  the  honor  and  interests  of  Maine. 
A minority  report  was  presented  by  William  Frye,  of  Bethel, 
who,  with  others,  objected  to  the  appointment  of  commissioners 
upon  any  conditions.  In  both  houses,  for  several  days,  there  was 
much  earnest  debate  with  reference  to  the  resolutions  as  reported 
and  the  amendments  that  had  been  proposed.  Prominent  in  the 
debate  were  Mr.  Bion  Bradbury  of  Calais  and  Israel  Washburn, 
Jr.,  of  Orono. 

Unquestionably  Mr.  Washburn’s  speech  was  helpful  in  secur- 
ing the  acceptance  of  Mr.  Webster’s  plan  for  the  settlement  of 
the  boundary  controversy.  Many  years  afterwards,  he  gave 
expression  to  his  disappointment  because  the  result  was  not  what 
he  expected.  Referring  to  that  result  he  said:  “l  think  there 
was  not  a member  of  either  house  who  had  a thought  or  fear  that 
any  convention  would  be  entered  into,  under  which,  if  the  State 
surrendered  land  which  was  hers  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  she  would 
not  receive  territory  in  return,  which  was  acknowledged  to  belong 
to  New  Brunswick.  From  the  opportunity  which  I had  of  know- 
ing the  feeling  and  expectation  of  members — having  myself  been 
one  of  them — I believe  I take  no  risk  in  saying  that  if  it  had  been 
understood  that  any  line  would  be  agreed  upon  that  should  not 
give  to  Maine  some  portion  of  the  acknowledged  territory  of  New 
Brunswick,  in  exchange  for  what  the  latter  should  receive  from 
Maine,  the  commission  would  never  have  been  constituted.  I do 
not  believe  it  would  have  received  ten  votes  in  both  houses.”  ^ 

Action  on  the  preamble  and  resolutions  presented  by  the  joint 

^Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  89. 


Israel  Washburn 


WEBSTER’S  PROPOSAL  ACCEPTED. 


325 


committee  was  taken  May  25,  1842,  after  they  had  been  recom- 
mitted for  amendment.  As  amended  they  were  passed  by  a vote 
of  177  to  11,  as  follows: 

“Whereas  the  preceding  Legislature  of  this  State,  in  conformity  with  the 
well-settled  conviction  of  all  the  people  thereof,  and  with  incontrovertible 
evidence  before  them  on  the  subject,  have  uniformly  declared  that  the 
boundary  of  Maine,  on  its  northern  and  northeast  frontiers,  as  designated  in 
the  treaty  of  1783,  can  be  laid  down  and  fixed  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
treaty;  and  that  such  line  embraces  all  the  territory  over  which  this  State 
claims  property,  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction;  and  the  executive  and  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  having  recognized  the  validity  of  that  claim  in  its 
full  extent,  this  legislature  renews  such  declarations  in  the  most  solemn 
manner;  and 

“Whereas,  for  a series  of  years,  every  attempt  to  adjust  the  vexed  ques- 
tions in  regard  to  the  establishment  of  the  said  boundary  having  proved 
ineffectual,  it  has  been  represented  to  the  government  of  this  State  that  the 
minister  plenipotentiary  and  special  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  at  Washington, 
has  officially  announced  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  that  he  has 
authority  to  treat  for  a conventional  line,  or  line  by  agreement,  on  such 
terms  and  conditions,  and  with  such  considerations  and  equivalents  as  may 
be  thought  just  and  equitable;  and,  that  he  is  ready  to  enter  upon  a negotia- 
tion for  such  conventional  line  as  soon  as  the  government  of  the  United  States 
shall  say  that  it  is  authorized  and  ready  on  its  part,  to  commence  such  nego- 
tiation; and 

“Whereas,  the  government  of  the  United  States,  not  possessing  the  consti- 
tutional power  to  conclude  any  such  negotiation  without  the  assent  of  Maine, 
has  invited  the  government  of  this  State  to  co-operate  to  a certain  extent, 
and  in  a certain  form,  in  an  endeavor  to  terminate  a controversy  of  so  long 
duration: 

“Now,  considering  the  premises,  and  believing  that  the  people  of  this  State, 
after  having  already  manifested  a forbearance,  honorable  to  their  character, 
under  long  continued  violations  of  their  rights  by  a foreign  nation;  and, 
though  not  disposed  to  yield  to  unfounded  pretensions,  are  still  willing,  in 
regard  to  the  proposal  now  made  by  the  general  government,  to  give  addi- 
tional evidence  to  their  fellow  citizens  throughout  the  United  States  of  their 
desire  to  preserve  the  peace  of  this  Union,  by  taking  measures  to  discuss  and 
conclude,  if  possible,  the  subject  in  controversy  in  a manner  that  will  secure 
the  honor  and  interests  of  the  State;  this  Legislature  adopts  the  following 
resolutions,  with  the  understanding,  however,  that  in  the  event  of  a failure 
in  such  endeavor  towards  an  arrangement,  no  proceedings  thereunder  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  in  any  manner  the  rights  of  the  State  as  they 
have  been  herein  asserted  to  exist: 


326 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


“Resolved,  That  there  shall  be  chosen,  by  ballot,  in  convention  of  both 
branches  of  the  legislature,  four  persons  who  are  hereby  constituted  and 
appointed  commissioners  on  the  part  of  this  State,  to  repair  to  the  seat  of 
government  of  the  United  States  and  to  confer  with  the  authorities  of  that 
government  touching  a conventional  line,  or  line  by  agreement,  between  the 
State  of  Maine  and  the  British  provinces,  having  regard  to  the  line  designated 
by  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  uniformly  claimed  by  this  State,  and  to  the  declara- 
tions and  views  expressed  in  the  foregoing  preamble,  and  to  give  the  assent 
of  this  State  to  any  such  conventional  line,  with  such  terms,  conditions,  con- 
siderations and  equivalents  as  they  shall  deem  consistent  with  the  honor  and 
interests  of  the  State;  with  the  understanding  that  no  such  line  be  agreed 
upon  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  such  commissioners. 

“Resolved,  That  this  State  cannot  regard  the  relinquishment  by  the  Brit- 
ish government  of  any  claim  heretofore  advanced  by  it  to  territory  included 
within  the  limits  of  the  line  of  this  State,  as  designated  by  the  treaty  of  1783 
and  uniformly  claimed  by  Maine,  as  a consideration  or  equivalent  within  the 
meaning  of  these  resolutions.’’  ^ 

It  was  understood  that  the  commissioners  would  be  taken  from 
the  two  political  parties  in  the  state.  A ballot  resulted  in  the 
choice  of  William  Pitt  Preble  and  Edward  Kavanagh  representing 
the  Democrats  of  Maine,  and  Edward  Kent  and  John  Otis  repre- 
senting the  Whigs.  The  governor  of  Massachusetts  appointed 
three  commissioners,  Abbot  Lawrence,  John  Mills  and  Charles 
Allen. 

This  action  of  the  Legislature  was  commended  with  great 
unanimity  by  the  Maine  newspapers.  The  Daily  Advertiser,  Port- 
land, June  1st,  contained  this  editorial  comment:  “The  appoint- 
ment of  commissioners,  with  full  and  unlimited  powers  to  settle 
our  boundary  line  in  the  exercise  of  a sound  discretion  only,  was 
a matter  which  called  for  calm,  dispassionate  discussion,  and 
necessarily  required  a little  time.  With  the  exception  of  one  day, 
the  debates  on  this  subject  were  conducted  with  a spirit  of  candor 
and  harmony  seldom  witnessed  in  our  legislative  halls;  and  it 
should  be  a matter  of  gratification  to  every  good  citizen  to  know 
that  their  representatives  have  nobly  seconded  their  desires  to 
have  this  vexed  and  irritating  question  of  the  boundary  line 

^ Three  minor  resolutions  with  reference  to  the  commissioners  followed. 
Resolves  of  Maine,  1842,  110,  111. 


WEBSTER  S PROPOSAE  ACCEPTED. 


327 


peaceably  and  honorably  settled.  The  public  press  of  our  State 
(with  a single  exception),  which  is  a true  index  of  the  public 
mind,  were  favorably  disposed  to  the  appointment  of  commission- 
ers with  ample  powers  to  terminate  a controversy  of  half  a cen- 
tury’s duration.  The  Legislature  have  carried  out  the  wishes  of 
the  people  by  the  appointment  of  commissioners,  and  it  is  now 
for  them  to  perform  the  responsible  duties  for  which  they  have 
been  selected.”  The  Ba?igor  Democrat  had  this  expression  of 
approval:  “We  did  not  anticipate  such  remarkable  unanimity, 
and  cannot  but  admire  the  patriotic  feeling  that  was  all  powerful 
in  allaying  party  spirit  and  uniting  all  interests  in  the  common 
cause.  The  attitude  the  State  has  assumed  has  prepared  the  way, 
we  hope,  for  a favorable  disposition  of  the  question;  but  if  the 
parties  cannot  agree  upon  terms  we  shall  have  the  proud  satisfac- 
tion of  knowing  that  we  have  not  unreasonably  interposed  obsta- 
cles to  prevent  it.  From  the  conciliatory  course  now  taken  we 
can  hereafter  appeal  with  the  more  confidence  to  the  general  gov- 
ernment and  the  people  of  the  Union  to  aid  us  in  forcibly  assert- 
ing our  rights  which  could  not  be  obtained  by  milder  measures. 
But  we  hope  for  the  settlement  of  diflSculties,  and  shall  rely  on 
the  good  faith  of  the  other  party  to  the  controversy  until  events 
show  that  our  confidence  has  been  misplaced.”  ^ 

1 Cited  by  The  Daily  Eastern  Argus,  Portland,  June  1,  1842. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

The  Ashburton-Webster  Negotiation. 


HE  Maine  commissioners  proceeded  to  Washington  with- 
out delay,  arriving  at  the  capital  on  June  12th.  Lord 
Ashburton  had  now  been  in  the  country  about  two 
months,  but  his  formal  oflScial  correspondence  with  Mr. 
Webster  did  not  begin  until  after  the  arrival  of  the  Maine  com- 
missioners. In  his  first  letter,  the  British  envoy  expressed  the 
opinion  that  no  advantage  was  to  be  derived  by  again  going  over 
the  general  grounds  on  which  hitherto  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  had  rested  their  territorial  claims.  All  arguments, 
he  said,  had  been  exhausted.  Any  new  attempt  must  rest  for  its 
success  on  the  presumption  that  previous  efforts  having  failed, 
there  remained  the  only  alternative  of  a compromise  unless  the 
two  countries  would  make  a second  trial  of  arbitration,  with  its 
delays,  troubles  and  expense,  and  in  defiance  of  probable  ill  suc- 
cess. In  fact,  he  trusted  that  all  parties  interested  would  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  case  could  be  considered  more  fairly  by 
the  two  governments  than  by  any  third  party. 

With  this  view  of  the  case,  Lord  Ashburton  called  attention  to 
what  he  regarded  as  some  public  misapprehensions  concerning 
the  controversy.  It  had  been  maintained,  he  remarked,  that  the 
whole  trouble  began  in  1814;  until  that  time,  it  was  asserted, 
the  line  claimed  by  Maine  was  undisputed  by  Great  Britain;  that 
the  British  claim  was  founded  on  a desire  to  obtain  the  means  of 
conveniently  connecting  the  British  provinces  in  North  America. 
This  last  assertion,  he  said,  was  founded  on  the  discussions  that 
preceded  the  treaty  of  Ghent  in  1814.  Such  a proposal  was 
submitted  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  for  a revision  of  the 
boundary  line  on  the  ground  that  Great  Britain  desired  to  secure 
favorable  communications  between  Lower  Canada  and  the  mari- 


Lord  Ashburton, 

From  portrait  in  the  State  Department  in  Washington 


THE  ASHBURTON- WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


329 


time  provinces.  Not  long  after,  the  British  representatives,  in  a 
conference  with  the  representatives  from  the  United  States,  main- 
tained that  the  line  claimed  by  this  country,  interrupting  the 
communications  between  Halifax  and  Quebec,  never  could  have 
been  in  contemplation  by  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783; 
and  that  this  view  pervaded  all  the  communications  between  the 
plenipotentiaries  of  the  two  countries  at  Ghent.  It  was  noto- 
rious, he  said,  that  at  that  time  different  opinions  existed  as  to  a 
boundary  line  from  the  head  of  the  St.  Croix.  This  was  “so 
clearly  known  and  admitted  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries” 
that  they  offered,  as  a preamble  to  their  fourth  article,  these  words: 
“Whereas,  neither  that  part  of  the  highlands  lying  due  north 
from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  designated  in  the 
former  treaty  of  peace  between  the  two  powers  as  the  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  nor  the  northwesternmost  head  of  the  Con- 
necticut river,  has  yet  been  ascertained,”  etc.  In  other  words, 
the  point  was  pressed  by  Lord  Ashburton  that  the  boundary  ques- 
tion was  a matter  in  dispute  long  before  the  year  1814,  and  his 
only  object  in  referring  to  it,  he  said,  “was  to  correct  an  error 
that  had  arisen,  which  seemed  to  have  been  circulated  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  make  some  refutation  helpful  to  any  attempt  to  an 
equitable  settlement.” 

As  to  the  present  position  of  Great  Britain,  Lord  Ashburton  had 
this  to  say:  “The  territory  in  controversy  is,  for  that  portion  at 
least  which  is  likely  to  come  to  Great  Britain  by  any  amicable 
settlement,  as  worthless  for  any  purposes  of  habitation  or  cultiva- 
tion as  probably  any  tract  of  equal  size  on  the  habitable  globe; 
and  if  it  were  not  for  the  obvious  circumstance  of  its  connecting 
the  British  North  American  provinces,  I believe  I might  venture 
to  say  that,  whatever  might  have  been  the  merit  of  our  case,  we 
should  long  since  have  given  up  the  controversy,  and  willingly 
have  made  the  sacrifice  to  the  wishes  of  a country  with  which  it 
is  so  much  our  interest,  as  it  is  our  desire,  to  maintain  the  most 
perfect  harmony  and  good  will.”  ^ 

^House  Executive  Documents,  27lh  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  31-34. 


330 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


The  first  of  the  official  interviews  between  Mr.  Webster  and 
fiord  Ashburton  was  held  on  June  18th.  At  this  conference,  Mr. 
Webster  requested  fiord  Ashburton  to  prepare  a formal  statement 
of  his  views  with  reference  to  the  negotiations  and  to  the  expec- 
tations of  his  government.  This  fiord  Ashburton  did  in  a letter 
dated  June  21st.  The  case,  he  said,  was  one  for  an  agreement  by 
compromise;  and  he  added,  as  his  own  conviction,  that  it  was  the 
intentions  of  the  parties  to  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783  to  leave  to 
Great  Britain,  by  their  description  of  the  boundaries,  the  whole 
of  the  waters  of  the  river  St.  John.  As  to  the  principles  and  con- 
ditions on  which  he  thought  the  compromise  should  be  attempted, 
fiord  Ashburton  referred  to  the  intentions  of  the  framers  of  the 
treaty  of  1783  as  recorded  in  the  preamble  to  the  provisional  arti- 
cles: “Whereas  reciprocal  advantages  and  mutual  conveniences 
are  found  by  experience  to  form  the  only  permanent  foundation 
of  peace  and  friendship  between  States,’’  etc.  He  considered  it 
desirable,  therefore,  that  each  government  should  retain  under  its 
jurisdiction  such  inhabitants  as  for  some  time  had  been  so  living, 
and  to  whom  a transfer  of  allegiance  might  be  distressing.  In 
justification  of  the  necessity  he  felt  for  insisting  on  a line  depart- 
ing to  a considerable  extent  from  the  line  of  the  river  St.  John, 
he  referred  to  the  French  settlement  at  Madawaska  as  originally 
formed  from  the  French  establishments  in  Acadia  and  continued 
uninterruptedly  under  French  or  British  dominion.  The  inhab- 
itants there,  he  said,  had  professed  great  apprehension  of  being 
surrendered  by  Great  Britain  and  had  lately  sent  an  earnest  peti- 
tion to  the  queen,  deprecating  such  a surrender.  There  would 
be  evident  hardship,  even  cruelty,  in  separating  this  now  happy 
and  contented  people,  to  say  nothing  of  the  bickering  and  proba- 
ble collisions,  by  adopting  a line  which  under  other  circumstances 
would  be  satisfactory  to  his  government.  Indeed,  he  would  con- 
sider such  a separation  a harsh  proceeding.  It  would  be  an  aban- 
donment of  the  great  object  which  should  constantly  be  held  in 
view — the  fixing  of  such  a boundary  as  would  be  the  least  likely 
to  occasion  future  strife.^ 

''■House  Executive  Documents , 27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  31-34. 


THE  ASHBURTON-WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


331 


In  a lengthy  reply  to  Lord  Ashburton’s  notes  of  June  13th  and 
21st,  Mr.  Webster,  July  8th,  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  both 
houses  of  Congress,  to  say  nothing  of  the  sentiments  of  the  gov- 
ernments and  people  of  the  states  more  directly  interested,  had 
asserted  the  validity  of  the  American  claims  by  a unanimity 
experienced  on  few  other  subjects;  and  he  added  the  reasons  that 
had  produced  in  the  country  the  conviction  that  a boundary  line 
could  be  run  according  to  its  description  in  the  treaty  of  1783. 
Without  considering  the  arguments  and  proofs  sustaining  these 
reasons,  he  referred  Lord  Ashburton  to  a paper  prepared  by  the 
commissioners  from  Maine,  “which,”  he  said,  “strongly  presents 
the  subject  on  other  grounds  and  in  other  lights.” 

Referring  to  Lord  Ashburton’s  statement  in  his  letter  of  June 
21st,  that  the  St.  John  River  for  some  distance  upward  from  its 
intersection  by  the  line  due  north  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix 
would  be  a convenient  boundary,  Mr.  Webster  assented;  but  how 
far,  and  to  which  of  the  sources  of  this  river  should  this  line 
extend,  was  a very  important  question.  Above  Madawaska,  the 
river  turns  south,  leaving  far  to  the  north  the  line  of  communica- 
tion between  Canada  and  New  Brunswick.  To  a line  south  of 
the  St.  John,  Mr.  Webster  saw  insurmountable  objections.  A 
river  line,  he  said,  is  always  clear  and  comprehensible.  If  we 
depart  from  it,  where  shall  we  find  another  line  equally  natural  ? 
“l  cannot  hold  out  the  expectation  to  your  lordship  that  anything 
south  of  the  river  can  be  yielded.” 

As  to  the  further  extension  of  the  boundary,  Mr.  Webster  said 
that  the  United  States,  having  in  view  proper  equivalents,  would 
not  object  to  a line  beginning  at  the  middle  of  the  main  channel 
of  the  St.  John,  where  the  river  is  intersected  by  the  due  north 
line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix;  thence  to  a point  three 
miles  westerly  of  the  mouth  of  the  Madawaska;  thence  by  a 
straight  line  to  the  outlet  of  Long  Lake;  thence,  westerly  by  a 
direct  line  to  the  point  where  the  river  St.  Francis  empties  itself 
into  the  lake  called  Pohenagamook;  thence,  continuing  in  the 
same  direct  line  to  the  highlands  dividing  the  waters  falling  into 


332 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  river  Du  L,oup  from  those  falling  into  the  St.  Francis.  This 
would  secure  to  England  a free  intercourse  between  Canada  and 
New  Brunswick,  and,  with  the  navigation  of  the  St.  John  yielded 
to  the  United  States,  would  meet  the  wants  of  all  parties.  The 
use  of  the  river  St.  John,  “free  from  tax,  toll,  or  other  liability,” 
he  added,  “is  an  object  of  considerable  importance  to  the  people 
of  Maine.”  * 

In  his  reply,  July  11th,  Lord  Ashburton  expressed  regret  that 
Mr.  Webster’s  letter,  and  the  paper  of  the  Maine  commissioners, 
contained  so  much  of  a renewal  of  the  old  controversy.  The 
commissioners  from  Maine,  however,  had  presented  this  that  was 
new,  namely,  that  they  now  found  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia  at  the  head  of  the  Madawaska  River,  which  was  “always 
considered  as  the  real  St.  John.”  What,  then,  he  asked,  had 
become  of  the  point  between  the  Metis  and  one  of  the  tributaries 
of  the  Ristigouche,  so  long  contended  for  by  Maine  ? The  two 
points  must  be  fifty  miles  apart,  and  both  could  not  be  the  lost 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia.  That  search,  therefore,  must  be  abandoned. 
Moreover,  an  examination  of  the  maps  and  documents,  said  Lord 
Ashburton,  had  led  him  to  a very  strong  conviction  that  the 
highlands  contemplated  by  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  were  the 
highlands  “at  the  head  of  the  Penobscot,  Kennebec  and  the  rivers 
west  of  the  St.  Croix;”  and  he  referred  to  proposals — British,  as 
has  hitherto  appeared — to  search  for  these  highlands  to  the  west, 
where  alone  he  believed  they  would  be  found  “to  answer  per- 
fectly the  description  of  the  treaty.” 

As  to  Mr.  Webster’s  statement  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  could  not  consent  to  a line  that  would  bring 
the  line  south  of  the  St.  John  without  some  equivalent  of  territory 
to  be  taken  from  the  limits  of  that  in  dispute.  Lord  Ashburton  said 
he  had  no  power  to  give  up  any  territory.  Great  Britain  being 
unwilling  to  dispose  arbitrarily  of  the  persons  and  property  of 
subjects  “living  by  preference  under  her  authority.”  Yet  he 
might  have  felt  justified  in  yielding  had  not  the  latter  part  of  Mr. 

House  Executive  Documents,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  41-47. 


THE  ASHBURTON-WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


333 


Webster’s  proposal,  if  finally  persevered  in,  forbidden  all  hope  of 
any  settlement  whatever.  The  reference  was  to  a proposal  for  a 
boundary  line  running  from  the  north  side  of  the  St.  John,  three 
miles  above  its  junction  with  the  Madawaska,  over  an  arbitrary 
line  until  it  somewhere  reached  the  St.  Francis.  This  would  give 
to  Great  Britain  less  than  the  arbiter,  he  said,  while  at  the  same 
time  she  would  be  called  upon  to  give  up  what  the  arbiter  awarded 
to  her — a proposal  which  he  was  at  a loss  to  account  for;  and  he 
was  inclined  to  think  that  a conference  would  afford  a better 
chance  of  success  than  correspondence. 

In  closing.  Lord  Ashburton  again  referred  to  Great  Britain’s 
concession  of  the  use  of  the  St.  John  River  in  floating  lumber. 
“It  is  said  in  the  memorandum  of  the  Maine  commissioners,  that 
this  conceded  navigation  will  be  as  useful  to  the  town  of  St.  John 
as  to  the  lumbermen  of  Maine;  but  it  will  not  escape  you  that, 
even  if  this  be  so,  it  is  a concession  necessary  to  give  any  value 
whatever  to  so  bulky  an  article  as  lumber,  which  being  not  other- 
wise disposable,  would  bear  any  reasonable  toll  which  the  provin- 
cial authorities  of  New  Brunswick  might  think  it  expedient  to 
levy  upon  it.  Farther,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  timber, 
once  at  the  mouth  of  the  St.  John,  will  have  the  privilege  of 
reaching  the  British  as  well  as  other  markets;  and,  lastly,  that  it 
is  a very  different  thing  to  hold  a privilege  of  this  important 
description  by  right,  than  by  mere  sufferance.”^ 

Lord  Ashburton’s  letter  of  June  21st  Mr.  Webster  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  members  of  the  Maine  commission,  also  Mr.  Sparks’ 
red-line  map;  and  on  the  29th  of  June  the  commissioners  gave 
written  expression  to  their  views  concerning  the  Ashburton  letter. 
If,  they  said,  the  proposed  conventional  line  must  be  established 
on  the  south  side  of  the  St.  John,  so  as  to  include  in  British  ter- 
ritory the  Madawaska  settlement,  and  such  a line  is  made  by  the 
British  government  a sine  qua  non,  they,  as  commissioners  on  the 
part  of  the  State  of  Maine,  considered  it  their  duty  to  say  that 
any  attempt  at  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  boundary  contro- 

^ House  Executive  Documents , 27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  48-53. 


334 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


versy  on  that  basis,  with  the  consent  of  Maine,  would  be  fruitless. 
Such  a proposition  had  surprised  and  pained  the  commissioners, 
requiring,  as  it  did,  that  Maine  should  yield,  beyond  what  had 
been  previously  indicated,  “a  valuable  territory  of  more  than 
fifty  miles  in  extent,  lying  along  the  south  side  of  the  St.  John, 
extending  from  the  due  north  line  westerly  to  Fish  river.”  The 
governor.  Legislature  and  people  of  Maine  had  not  expected  such 
a proposition,  and  no  commissioners  would  have  been  sent  to 
consider  it.  “in  this  state  of  things,”  remarked  the  commis- 
sioners, “it  becomes  a bounden  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  under- 
signed, to  say  to  you,  that  if  the  yielding  and  relinquishing  on 
the  part  of  the  State  of  Maine,  of  any  portion  of  territory,  how- 
ever small,  on  the  south  side  of  the  St.  John,  be  with  her  Majes- 
ty’s government  a sine  qua  non  to  an  amicable  settlement,  the 
mission  of  the  Commissioners  of  Maine  is  ended.” 

With  the  consent  of  the  Massachusetts  commissioners,  however, 
they  made  a like  proposal  to  that  contained  in  Mr.  Webster’s  let- 
ter to  Lord  Ashburton  July  8th,  and  already  mentioned.  The 
reasons  presented  by  the  commissioners  for  proposing  such  a line 
in  preference  to  any  other  were  as  follows:  (l)  It  yielded  to 
Great  Britain  all  that  she  needed  in  order  to  secure  to  her  unob- 
structed communication  between  Canada  and  her  maritime  prov- 
inces, and,  with  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  John,  seemed  to 
meet  the  wants  of  all  parties.  (2)  The  most  natural  boundary 
from  the  due  north  line  to  the  highlands  of  the  treaty  would  be 
the  St.  John  and  the  Madawaska  to  its  source.  But,  as  this 
would  cut  off  communication  between  the  British  provinces  at 
the  Grand  portage,  the  proposed  line  removed  this  difficulty. 
(3)  As  Great  Britain  had  restrained  her  minister  from  granting 
any  territorial  equivalent  to  Maine,  a further  concession  of  terri- 
tory on  the  part  of  Maine  could  hardly  be  expected  from  her. 
The  proposition,  continued  the  commissioners,  involved  a sacrifice 
of  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  just  claims  and  expectations 
of  Maine;  but  it  was  made  in  the  spirit  of  peace  and  to  satisfy 


THE  ASHBURTON-WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


335 


her  sister  states  that  Maine  was  not  pertinacious  or  unreasonable, 
but  ready  to  make  large  sacrifices  for  the  general  good. 

The  communication  closed  with  a reference  to  the  French  neu- 
trals at  Madawaska,  who,  according  to  Lord  Ashburton,  professed 
great  apprehension  of  being  surrendered  by  Great  Britain.  The 
grants  that  have  been  made  to  them  should  be  confirmed,  it  was 
stated,  and  the  right  should  be  reserved  to  them  to  elect  under 
which  government  they  would  remain  citizens  or  subjects.  Men- 
tion also  was  made  of  the  hard  lot  and  sufferings  of  these  people, 
and  of  their  fathers,  giving  them  a claim  to  the  sympathies  of 
their  neighbors.  They  supposed  when  they  settled  at  Madawaska 
that  they  were  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  the 
friend  and  ally  of  France.  “With  a knowledge  of  their  history, 
and  the  wrongs  they  have  suffered,”  continued  the  commission-' 
ers,  “it  will  be  difficult  for  the  people  of  Maine  to  bring  them- 
selves into  the  belief  that  these  people  are  opposed  to  living  under 
the  mild  and  gentle  sway  of  our  free  institutions.  It  will  be 
equally  diflScult  for  the  people  of  Maine  to  satisfy  themselves  that 
it  is  only  from  a lively  and  disinterested  sympathy  for  these  poor 
Frenchmen  that  the  government  of  Great  Britain  is  so  solicitous 
to  retain  possession  of  the  south  bank  of  the  St.  John,  extending 
from  the  due  north  line  more  than  fifty  miles  up  to  Fish  river.” 

Lord  Ashburton,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Webster,  had  prepared 
the  way  for  this  reference  to  the  tragic  story  of  the  exile  of  the 
French  Acadians;  but  he  could  hardly  have  expected  this  added 
enlargement  of  the  story  made  by  the  Maine  commissioners. 

On  July  15,  1842,  after  the  commissioners  had  made  use  of 
ample  time  for  conferring  with  the  Maine  delegation  in  Congress 
and  others  familiar  with  the  boundary  controversy,  Mr.  Webster 
again  addressed  them  in  a letter,  in  which,  after  a reference  to 
frequent  conferences  held  with  Lord  Ashburton,  he  called  atten- 
tion to  a boundary  line  described  in  an  inclosed  paper,  which  he 
had  reason  to  believe  the  British  minister  would  accept.  The 
territory  in  dispute,  he  said,  contained  12,027  square  miles,  equal 

^House  Executive  Docuynents,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  70-78. 


336 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


to  7,697,280  acres.  By  the  line  indicated  in  the  paper  there  was 
assigned  to  the  United  States  7,015  square  miles,  equal  to 
4,489,600  acres;  and  to  Great  Britain  5,012  square  miles,  equal 
to  3,207,680  acres,'  As  an  equivalent  to  the  territory  relinquished 
by  the  United  States  the  British  minister,  Mr.  Webster  thought, 
would  probably  agree  to  the  use  of  the  St.  John  River  free  from 
all  discriminating  tolls  or  inabilities  of  any  kind,  a privilege  that 
would  greatly  enhance  the  value  of  the  territory  and  the  timber 
growing  upon  it. 

In  submitting  these  considerations  to  the  Maine  commissioners, 
Mr.  Webster  said  he  had  authority  for  the  statement  that  if  they 
and  the  commissioners  from  Massachusetts  should  assent  to  the 
line  thus  described,  the  United  States  would  pay  to  Maine  and 
Massachusetts  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  to  be 
divided  between  them  in  equal  moieties,  and  also  pay  for  the 
expenses  incurred  by  these  states  for  the  maintenance  of  the  civil 
posse  and  the  survey  it  had  been  found  necessary  to  make.  The 
line  suggested  and  the  compensations  and  equivalents  could  not 
be  said  to  be  such  as  had  been  hoped  for,  he  added,  but  “as  the 
settlement  of  a controversy  of  such  duration  is  a matter  of  high 
importance,  as  equivalents  of  undoubted  value  are  offered,  as 
longer  postponement  and  delay  would  tend  to  further  inconven- 
ience and  to  the  incurring  of  further  expenses,  and  as  no  better 
occasion,  nor,  perhaps,  any  other  occasion,  for  settling  the  bound- 
ary by  agreement,  and  on  the  principle  of  equivalents,  is  ever 
likely  to  present  itself,  the  government  of  the  United  States  hopes 
that  the  commissioners  of  the  two  states  will  find  it  to  be  consist- 
ent with  their  duty  to  assent  to  the  line  proposed,  and  to  the 
terms  and  conditions  attending  the  proposition.”  ^ 

The  description  of  the  proposed  boundary,  inclosed  in  Mr. 
Webster’s  letter,  was  as  follows:  “Beginning  at  the  monument  at 

^ ‘‘Of  the  general  division  of  the  territory,  it  might  be  said,  that,  while  the 
portion  remaining  to  the  United  States  was  in  quantity  seven-twelfths,  in 
value  it  was  at  least  four-fifths  of  the  whole.”  J.  B.  Moore,  International 
Arbitrations,  I,  150. 

"^The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.  Boston,  Little  & Brown,  1851,  VI,  276-297. 


THE  ASHBURTON-WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION.  337 

the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  as  designated  by  the  commis- 
sioners under  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1794,  between  the 
governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain;  thence, 
north,  following  the  exploring  line  run  and  marked  by  the  sur- 
vey of  the  two  governments  in  the  years  1817  and  1818,  under 
the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  to  its  intersection  with  the 
river  St.  John,  and  to  the  middle  of  the  channel  thereof;  thence, 
up  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  said  river  St.  John  to 
the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Francis;  thence,  up  the  middle  of  the 
channel  of  the  said  river  St.  Francis,  and  of  the  lakes  through 
which  it  flows  to  the  outlet  of  the  Lake  Pohenagamook;  thence 
southwesterly,  in  a straight  line,  to  a point  on  the  northwest 
branch  of  the  river  St.  John,  which  point  shall  be  ten  miles  dis- 
tant from  the  main  branch  of  the  St.  John,  in  a straight  line  and 
in  the  nearest  direction — but  if  the  said  point  shall  be  found  to  be 
less  than  seven  miles  from  the  nearest  point  of  the  summit  or  crest 
of  the  highlands  that  divide  those  rivers  which  empty  themselves 
into  the  river  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  then  the  said  point  shall  be  made  to  recede  down  the  said 
river  to  a point  seven  miles  in  a straight  line  from  the  said  sum- 
mit or  crest;  thence,  in  a straight  line,  in  a course  about  south, 
eight  degrees  west,  to  the  point  where  the  parallel  of  latitude  of 
forty-six  degrees,  twenty-five  minutes,  intersects  the  southwest 
branch  of  the  St.  John;  thence,  southerly,  by  the  said  branch,  to 
the  source  thereof,  in  the  highlands  at  the  Metjarmette  portage; 
thence,  down  the  middle  of  said  stream,  till  the  line  thus  run 
intersects  the  old  line  of  boundary  surveyed  and  marked  by  Val- 
entine and  Collins,  previously  to  the  year  1774,  as  the  forty-fifth 
degree  of  latitude,  and  which  has  been  known  and  understood  to 
be  the  line  of  actual  division  between  the  States  of  New  York  and 
Vermont  on  one  side,  and  the  British  province  of  Canada  on  the 
other;  and  from  said  point  of  intersection  west,  along  the  said 
dividing  line,  as  heretofore  known  and  understood,  to  the  Iroquois 
or  St.  Lawrence.”  ^ 

^House  Executive  Documents , 27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  81. 


22 


338 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


This  letter  from  Mr.  Webster  of  July  15th  was  also  sent  to 
the  commissioners  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.  It 
brought  very  great  disappointment  to  the  commissioners  of  both 
states,  and  especially  to  those  from  the  State  of  Maine.  The 
Massachusetts  commissioners  made  no  reply  until  July  20th. 
The  proposed  boundary  line,  they  said,  was  not  what  they  had 
expected  to  secure  “in  view  of  the  strength  of  the  American 
claim.”  The  proposed  boundary  called  for  the  relinquishment 
of  territory  to  which  Massachusetts  believed  she  had  a clear  and 
indisputable  right.  So  strong  was  her  conviction  with  reference 
to  the  matter,  that  rather  than  surrender  any  portion  of  that  ter- 
ritory without  just  equivalents,  she  would  prefer  an  appeal  to  the 
same  arbitrament  by  which  the  acknowledgment  of  her  right 
was  originally  obtained.  Other  considerations,  however,  were 
forceful.  The  well-known  desire  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  for  a speedy  settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy,  and 
the  request  of  the  general  government  that  Massachusetts  would 
yield  her  consent,  had  weight  with  the  Massachusetts  commission- 
ers; and  with  a request  that  the  pecuniary  compensation  to  be 
paid  by  the  federal  government  to  the  commonwealth  should 
be  increased  to  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars, they  gave  their  consent  to  the  proposed  boundary  line.^ 

The  Maine  commissioners  made  their  reply  on  July  22nd.  For 
an  entire  week  they  had  given  to  Mr.  Webster’s  letter  the  “grave 
deliberation”  for  which  the  secretary  of  state  had  asked.  The 
boundary  line  in  this  new  proposal  was  not  that  for  which  they 
had  labored,  they  said.  While  they  came  to  Washington  with  a 
firm  conviction  with  reference  to  Maine’s  rights,  they  also  came 
with  the  disposition  and  determination  to  meet  a conciliatory 
proposition  for  a conventional  line  ready  for  any  reasonable  equiv- 
alent to  yield  all  that  the  other  party  desired  or  asked  for,  namely, 
such  territory  as  would  enable  the  people  of  Canada  and  the  mar- 
itime provinces  to  maintain  a direct  and  uninterrupted  communi- 
cation. This,  they  had  understood,  was  the  only  professed  object 

'^House  Executive  Documents,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  90,  91. 


THE  ASHBURTON- WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


339 


that  Great  Britain  had  in  view,  and  to  this  they  had  decided  to 
give  consent.  They  were  met  at  the  outset,  however,  by  a prop- 
osition that  required  on  Maine’s  part  the  cession  of  all  the  terri- 
tory north  of  the  St.  John,  and  also  territory  south  of  that  river 
comprising  the  Madawaska  settlement,  with  no  other  equivalent 
than  the  free  use  of  the  St.  John  River.  Although  later  there 
was  a substantial  withdrawal  of  Lord  Ashburton’s  claim  to  any 
territory  south  of  the  river  St.  John,  there  was  no  relinquishment 
or  even  modification  of  his  claim  to  territory  north  of  that  river. 

Moreover,  as  to  the  terms  and  conditions  attending  the  propo- 
sition now  made,  the  negotiations  on  their  part  had  been  con- 
ducted with  no  mercenary  ends  in  view,  having  no  design  to 
extort  unreasonable  equivalents  or  extravagant  compensation. 
“The  State  of  Maine,”  said  the  commissioners,  “had  always  felt 
an  insuperable  repugnance  to  parting  with  any  portion  even  of  her 
disputed  territory  for  mere  pecuniary  recompense  from  adverse 

claimants All  the  pecuniary  offers  contained  in  your 

note,  most  liberally  construed,  would  scarcely  recompense  and 
repay  to  Maine  the  amount  of  money  and  interest  which  she  has 
actually  expended  in  defending  and  protecting  the  territory  from 
wrongs  arising  and  threatened  by  reason  of  its  condition  as  dis- 
puted ground.”  Therefore,  regarding  the  proposition  in  Mr. 
Webster’s  letter  as  involving  the  surrender  of  more  territory  than 
the  avowed  objects  of  Great  Britain  required,  as  removing  also 
landmarks  from  the  well-defined  boundary  of  1783,  and  as  insist- 
ing upon  the  line  of  the  arbiter  in  its  full  extent,  the  commission- 
ers declared  their  inability  to  bring  their  minds  to  the  conviction 
that  the  proposal  was  “such  as  Maine  had  a right  to  expect.” 

The  Maine  commissioners,  therefore,  were  even  more  disin- 
clined to  accept  the  proposed  terms  than  were  the  Massachusetts 
commissioners;  but  they  recognized  the  fact  that  it  would  be 
unpatriotic  and  unwise  not  “to  overcome  their  objections  to  the 
proposal  in  so  far  as  to  say,  that  if,  upon  mature  consideration 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  advise  and  consent  to  the 
ratification  of  a treaty,  corresponding  in  its  terms”  with  Mr. 


340 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Webster’s  proposal  and  with  the  conditions  conveyed  in  a memo- 
randum accompanying  their  note,  they  would,  as  authorized, 
give  the  assent  of  the  state  to  the  proposed  conventional  line,  in 
accordance  with  the  proffered  terms,  conditions  and  equivalents 
as  mentioned  by  the  secretary  of  state.* 

In  an  inclosed  memorandum  the  Maine  commissioners  requested 
that  the  following  provisions,  or  at  least  their  substance,  should 
have  a place  in  the  proposed  treaty:  (l)  That  the  amount  of  the 
disputed  territory  fund,  received  by  the  authorities  of  New  Bruns- 
wick for  timber  cut  on  that  territory,  should  be  paid  over  to  the 
United  States  for  the  use  of  Maine  and  Massachusetts  in  full;  or 
a gross  sum,  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  commissioners  of  Maine 
and  Massachusetts,  should  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  as  a settle- 
ment of  that  fund;  and  that  all  claims,  bonds  and  securities  taken 
for  timber  cut  upon  the  territory  should  be  transferred  to  the 
authorities  of  Maine  and  Massachusetts.  (2)  That  all  grants  of 
land  within  that  portion  of  the  disputed  territory  conceded  to 
Great  Britain,  made  by  Maine  and  Massachusetts,  or  either  of 
them,  should  be  confirmed,  and  all  equitable  possessory  titles 
should  be  quieted  to  those  who  possess  the  claims.  There  should 
be,  also,  a reciprocal  provision  for  the  benefit  of  settlers  falling 
within  the  limits  of  Maine.  They  desired,  further,  that  a volun- 
tary suggestion  of  the  British  minister  in  regard  to  John  Baker, 
and  others  similarly  situated,  should  be  carried  into  effect,  so  as 
to  secure  their  rights.  (3)  The  free  right  of  navigation  on  the 
St.  John  should  include  the  products  of  the  soil,  as  well  as  the 
products  of  the  forest,  and  no  toll,  tax  or  duty  should  be  levied 
upon  timber  coming  from  the  territory  of  Maine. ^ 

Having  thus  received  from  the  commissioners  of  Maine  and 
Massachusetts  the  assent  of  their  respective  states  to  the  proposed 
conventional  line,  Mr.  Webster,  on  July  27th,  informed  Lord 
Ashburton  that  he  was  ready  to  propose  a line  of  division  between 
the  United  States  and  the  British  provinces  of  New  Brunswick 

^House  Exeaitive  Documetits,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,,  II,  91-97. 

^Ib.,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  97. 


THE  ASHBURTON-WEBSTER  NEGOTIATION. 


341 


and  Canada  conforming  in  substance  to  the  result  of  their  many 
conferences.  That  line  he  now  indicated  with  considerable  full- 
ness, adding:  ‘ ‘When  the  proposed  line  shall  be  properly  described 
in  the  treaty,  the  grant  by  England  of  the  right  to  use  the  waters 
of  the  river  St.  John  for  the  purpose  of  transporting  to  the  mouth 
of  that  river  all  the  timber  and  agricultural  products  raised  in 
Maine,  on  the  waters  of  the  St.  John,  or  any  of  its  tributaries, 
without  subjection  to  any  discriminating  toll,  duty  or  disability, 
is  to  be  inserted.  Provision  should  also  be  made  for  quieting  and 
confirming  the  titles  of  all  persons  having  claims  to  lands  on 
either  side  of  the  line,  whether  such  titles  be  perfect  or  inchoate 
only,  and  to  the  same  extent  in  which  they  would  have  been  con- 
firmed by  their  respective  governments,  had  no  change  taken  place. 
What  has  been  agreed  to,  also,  in  respect  to  the  common  use  of 
certain  passages  in  the  rivers  and  lakes,  as  already  stated,  must 
be  made  matter  of  regular  stipulation-.  There  was  a fund  arising 
from  the  sale  of  timber  according  to  an  arrangement  which  for- 
merly took  place  between  the  two  governments.  The  treaty 
should  provide  for  carrying  that  arrangement  into  effect.  There 
should  also  be  an  article  for  the  creation  of  a commission  to  run 
and  mark  such  parts  of  the  line  between  Maine  and  the  British 
provinces  as  has  not  been  marked.”  ^ 

Lord  Ashburton  found  Mr.  Webster’s  statement  substantially 
correct  in  all  its  parts,  and  declared  his  readiness  to  proceed  to 
draw  up  the  treaty. “ This  work  was  promptly  executed,  and 
Mr.  Webster  and  Lord  Ashburton  affixed  their  signatures  to  the 
treaty®  on  August  9,  1842. 

In  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  the  navigation  of  the  river  St. 
John  is  made  free  to  both  countries. ‘ 

'^House  Executive  Documents,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  55-59. 

^Ib. , 27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  59,  60. 

®Ib.,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  25-30. 

‘Because  of  Maine’s  complaint  in  1844  that  New  Brunswick  had  imposed  a 
duty  of  a shilling  a ton  on  all  timber  shipped  from  any  port  in  the  province. 
Great  Britain,  in  1871,  in  remedy  thereof,  engaged  “to  urge  upon  Canada 
and  New  Brunswick  that  no  export  duty,  or  other  duty,  should  be  levied  on 


342 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


In  the  fourth  article  provision  was  made  for  the  confirmation 
of  such  grants  of  land  as  had  previously  been  made  by  either 
party  in  territory  left  by  the  treaty  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  other; 
also  for  the  confirmation  of  all  equitable  possessory  claims  based 
on  the  possession  and  improvement  of  any  lot  or  parcel  of  land 
by  the  person  in  actual  possession,  or  by  those  under  whom  he 
claimed,  more  than  six  years  before  the  signing  of  the  treaty. 

In  the  fifth  article  permission  was  made  for  the  distribution  of 
the  “disputed  territory  fund,”  as  suggested  by  the  Maine  com- 
missioners. Of  this  fund  the  United  States  agreed  to  pay  to 
Maine  and  Massachusetts  their  respective  portions,  and  also  to 
satisfy  their  claims  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  protecting 
the  disputed  territory  and  in  making  a survey  thereof  in  1838. 
The  United  States  further  agreed  “with  the  States  of  Maine  and 
Massachusetts  to  pay  them  the  further  sum  of  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  in  equal, moieties,  on  account  of  their  assent  to 
the  line  of  boundary  described  in  this  treaty,  and  in  consideration 
of  the  conditions  and  equivalents  received  therefor  from  the  gov- 
ernment of  her  Britannic  Majesty.” 

In  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  provision  was  made  for  the 
establishment  of  the  boundary  (as  described)  by  two  commis- 
sioners, one  to  be  appointed  by  the  United  States,  and  one  by 
Great  Britain.* 

lumber  or  timber  of  any  kind,”  cut  on  territory  ‘‘watered  by  the  St.  John 
and  its  tributaries,  and  floated  down  that  river  to  the  sea,  when  the  same  is 
shipped  to  the  United  States  from  the  province  of  New  Brunswick.”  Moore, 
International  Arbitrations , I,  152,  note. 

Report  of  the  [Maine]  Commissioners,  under  Resolves  of  May  26,  1842,  hi 
Relation  to  the  Northeastern  Boundary.  Augusta,  1843,  83-87. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  Ashburton  Treaty  Ratified. 


should  so  advise,  they  undoubtedly  entertained  the  hope 
that  the  discussion  of  the  treaty  would  result  in  some  modifications 
of  its  terms  in  the  interest  of  the  border  state.  President  Tyler 
communicated  the  treaty  to  the  Senate  August  11,  1842.  It 
established,  he  said,  the  boundary  line,  from  the  source  of  the 
St.  Croix  to  the  St.  Lawrence,  for  considerations  satisfactory  to 
Maine  and  Massachusetts;  the  chief  of  these  considerations  being 
the  privilege  of  transporting  the  lumber  and  agricultural  prod- 
ucts of  Maine  down  the  St.  John  to  the  ocean  free  from  imposi- 
tion or  disability.  To  a country,  covered  by  forests  of  great 
value,  and  much  of  it  capable  of  agricultural  improvement,  he 
regarded  this  privilege,  perpetual  in  its  terms,  as  a matter  of 
importance  upon  which  the  opinion  of  intelligent  men  was  not 
likely  to  be  divided.^ 

The  treaty,  with  the  president’s  message  and  accompanying 
documents,  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations. 
That  committee,  August  15th,  reported  the  treaty  without  amend- 
ments, and  it  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  in  the  Senate  for 
August  17th. At  that  time,  Mr.  William  C.  Rives,*  of  Virginia, 
chairman  of  the  committee,  in  opening  the  debate  said  that  while 
the  committee  and  a large  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  were  clear  in  their  conviction  of  the  justice  of  the  American 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  IV,  162-165. 

“^Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  1. 

®He  was  twice  minister  to  France,  and  thrice  elected  a member  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States. 


N 


OTWITHSTANDING  the  Maine  commissioners  had  given 
their  consent  to  the  proposed  conventional  line,  provided 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  mature  consideration 


344 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


claim,  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  stand  uncompromisingly  on 
the  ground  of  right.  We  have  made  the  question  a subject  of 
arbitration,  he  remarked,  and  the  opinion  of  the  arbiter,  however 
wanting  in  legal  obligation,  has  been  declared  to  the  world  and  is 
against  our  claim.  Since  then,  this  expedient  has  been  rejected 
by  Great  Britain,  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Maine.  In 
this  connection  Mr.  Rives  referred  to  the  Sparks  and  other  maps 
hitherto  mentioned;  but  while  denying  any  just  weight  to  them 
affecting  the  American  claim,  he  saw  the  use  that  might  be  made 
of  them  in  event  of  another  arbitration.  In  order  to  terminate, 
therefore,  this  protracted  controversy,  he  held  that  the  only 
remaining  expedient  was  the  establishment  of  a new  and  well- 
defined  conventional  line;  and  he  was  authorized  to  say  that  a 
threefold  option  had  been  offered  to  the  Maine  commissioners — 
the  award,  arbitration,  and  the  arrangement  now  before  the  Sen- 
ate. The  last,  the  commissioners  had  deliberately  elected.  To 
the  committee,  also,  from  a national  point  of  view,  the  arrange- 
ment before  the  Senate  presented  equally  obvious  advantages.^ 
Levi  Woodbury,^  of  New  Hampshire,  following  Mr.  Rives, 
thought  it  not  patriotic,  or  warranted  by  the  facts,  to  seek  to  jus- 
tify a ratification  of  the  treaty  by  arguments  derived  from  loose 
conjectures  of  itinerant  Americans  in  Europe.  The  French  map 
of  1755,  which,  with  its  red  lines,  running  west  from  the  St. 
Croix,  had  been  made  to  occupy  so  prominent  a place  in  the 
debate,  was  doubtless  one  illustrating  the  boundaries  between  the 
French  and  British  colonies  in  America,  before  the  conquest  of 
Canada  by  Great  Britain  and  its  cession  in  1763.  There  is  a sim- 
ilar map  in  the  French  atlas  on  the  table  of  the  secretary,  which 
he  had  procured  from  the  state  department.  The  publications  of 
that  earlier  day  were  full  of  such  maps.  Whatever  might  be  the 
decision  of  the  Senate  with  reference  to  the  treaty,  that  decision 
should  not  be  based  on  any  doubt  created  by  old  maps.® 

'^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  59-62. 

2 He  was  secretary  of  the  navy,  1831-1834,  and  secretary  of  the  treasury, 
1834-1841. 

^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  27,  28. 


THE  ASHBURTON  TREATY  RATIFIED. 


345 


Thomas  H.  Benton/  of  Missouri,  continued  the  debate.  Mr. 
Rives  had  referred  to  Maine’s  consent  to  the  conventional  line  of 
the  treaty.  If  such  consent  had  been  given,  he  said,  it  would 
signify  nothing.  The  boundaries  in  question  are  not  state  but 
national;  they  are  not  in  the  custody  of  Maine,  but  of  the  whole 
Union.  “The  consent  of  Maine!  What  was  that  consent ? How 

obtained  and  how  used  ? Isolated  from  her  sister  States 

— from  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  New  York  and 
Michigan — all  of  which  were  conciliated  in  favor  of  the  treaty; 
pressed  upon  by  her  own  government,  which  presented  the  Brit- 
ish proposition  and  urged  its  acceptance,  informed  that  nothing 
better  could  be  expected;  warned  that  this  might  be  the  last 
chance  for  settling  the  question  by  agreement;  presented  as  the 
sole  obstacle  to  the  peace  and  happiness  of  two  great  nations; 
thus  isolated,  urged  and  menaced,  the  Maine  Commissioners  so 
far  assented  as  to  agree  to  the  sacrifice  upon  condition  that  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  mature  consideration,  should  advise 
and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty;”  and  the  senator 
cited  the  language  of  the  Maine  commissioners  in  yielding  their 
consent,  as  they  gave  reluctant  expression  to  it.  Limiting  him- 
self at  present  to  the  fact  that  Maine  did  not  consent  to  the  wrong 
which  was  done  to  her  and  to  the  United  States,  but  made  that 
consent  dependent  and  conditioned  on  the  judgment  of  the  Senate 
after  mature  consideration,  Mr.  Benton  closed  with  the  remark 
that  his  general  objections  to  the  treaty  would  be  presented  at 
another  time.^ 

The  Sparks  map  had  made  no  impression  upon  Mr.  Benton. 
He,  too,  had  found  a map  with  a red  line,  and  he  related  an 
interesting  conversation  he  had  with  Jefferson  in  his  later  years  in 
a long  winter  evening,  in  which  Jefferson  referred  to  a collection 
of  books,  maps,  etc.,  pertaining  to  this  country,  which,  with  the 
sale  of  his  library  to  the  United  States,  had  gone  to  the  library  of 
Congress.  It  had  occurred  to  him  to  ask  the  librarian  to  send  to 

^ He  was  a member  of  the  Senate  from  1821  to  1851. 

“^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  7. 


346 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


him  the  Jefferson  maps,  and  he  was  looking  over  the  collection, 
when  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations  was  call- 
ing the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  Sparks  map.  Looking  to 
see  if  the  same  map  was  in  Jefferson’s  collection,  he  fell  upon 
“the  same  red-line  map  made  in  Paris  in  1784,  dedicated  and  pre- 
sented to  Franklin.  This  he  exhibited  to  the  Senate  and  had  it 
placed  on  the  secretary’s  table  for  the  inspection  of  senators.”' 
Evidently  there  were  red  lines  on  many  maps.’' 

On  Friday,  August  19th,  Mr.  Williams,  of  Maine,  continued 
the  debate.  This,  he  said,  was  not  the  entertainment  to  which 
his  state  was  invited,  and  he  recited  the  facts  connected  with  the 

'^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  16.  The 
matter  of  the  red-line  map  was  brought  up  at  the  next  session  of  Congress 
by  Colonel  Benton,  who,  January  4,  1843,  referring  to  the  debate  concerning 
the  treaty,  said:  “When  he  saw  that  the  senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Rives] 
was  yet  in  the  act  of  pressing  the  importance  of  the  map  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Sparks,  he  interrupted  the  senator  by  calling,  ‘Here  is  the  very  same  red 
line  on  Mr.  Jefferson’s  map,’  and  on  comparison  it  was  found  to  correspond 
exactly.  He  proclaimed  the  red  line  loudly  to  prove  that  Mr.  Sparks’  secret 
was  no  secret  at  all.”  Congressional  Globe  for  1842-1843,  XII,  111. 

^In  1838,  Mr.  Webster  received  information  that  a gentleman  in  New  York 
had  a copy  of  Mitchell’s  map  with  lines  on  it  corresponding  to  the  British 
claim.  Mr.  Webster  was  told  that  the  map  had  been  found  among  the  papers 
of  Baron  Steuben,  of  Revolutionary  fame,  and  that  there  was  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  the  map  could  be  traced  to  Mr.  Jay,  etc.,  etc.  It  was  also  said  that 
the  British  consul  in  New  York  was  endeavoring  to  obtain  it  and  had  offered 
a very  large  price  for  it.  On  looking  at  it  Mr.  Webster  concluded  it  would 
be  prudent  to  keep  it  on  this  side  of  the  water,  and  he  bought  it  for  $200.00. 
When  the  map  was  shown  to  Mr.  Charles  S.  Daveis,  he  wanted  it  for  the 
State  of  Maine  and  paid  Mr.  Webster  for  it.  The  members  of  the  governor’s 
council  in  Maine  declined  to  allow  this  expenditure  ‘‘unless  they  could 
understand  distinctly  for  what  it  was  paid.”  Governor  Kent  and  Mr.  Daveis 
were  not  then  ready  to  yield  their  secret  with  reference  to  the  map,  and  Mr. 
Daveis  was  not  reimbursed  until  some  time  after.  The  map  evidently  was 
one  of  other  maps  in  existence  in  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  but 
it  had  no  more  value  than  the  Sparks  map,  which  long  ago  went  into  deserved 
obscurity.  Recent  search  for  it  has  not  been  rewarded.  It  is  neither  in  the 
state  department  in  Washington,  nor  in  the  library  of  Congress.  The  Sparks 
papers  are  in  the  library  of  Harvard  University,  but  the  Sparks  map  is  not 
among  them. 


THE  ASHBURTON  TREATY  RATIFIED. 


347 


appeal  that  was  made  to  the  governor  of  Maine  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  asking  him  to  convene  the  Legislature  in 
order  that  the  national  government  might  receive  authority  to 
settle  the  boundary  controversy  on  such  terms  as  would  be  deemed 
just  and  equitable.  Opposed  to  arbitration,  Maine  listened  to  the 
appeal  made  by  the  president  through  the  governor.  Commis- 
sioners were  appointed,  and  the  commissioners  made  their  way  to 
Washington  in  the  hope  of  aiding  the  general  government  in  a 
manner  honorable  to  both  nations,  and  with  due  regard  to  the 
rights  and  convenience  of  the  subjects  of  both  countries.  How 
these  hopes  had  failed  of  realization  the  senator  proceeded  to 
show  from  the  course  of  the  negotiations.  The  boundary  and 
equivalents  proposed  by  Lord  Ashburton  were  found  to  be  wholly 
unacceptable,  and  therefore  were  rejected.  They  then  presented 
a counter-proposition  to  Lord  Ashburton — one  “more  liberal,  and 
yielding  more  for  peace  and  good  neighborhood  than  could  have 
been  anticipated  by  the  people  or  by  the  Legislature  of  Maine. 
That  counter-proposition  was  rejected;  and  there  the  subject 
would  have  rested,  but  for  the  renewed  efforts  of  the  general 
government  itself,  whereby  the  line  and  equivalents  mentioned 
in  the  treaty  now  under  consideration  were  presented  to  the 
commissioners.” 

This  was  the  settlement  proposed  to  the  Maine  commissioners, 
and  they  were  told  that  no  more  advantageous  arrangement  was 
likely  to  be  expected.  By  whom  were  they  told?  “By  the  pres- 
ident and  that  government  which  is  bound  by  the  Constitution  to 
protect  Maine  in  all  her  rights,  and  without  whose  protection  it 
is  vain  for  any  State  to  contend  with  a foreign  government,  how- 
ever just  and  well  founded  her  claim.  Thus  abandoned  and  thus 
admonished  by  the  only  power  to  which  Maine  could  look  for 
the  maintenance  and  establishment  of  her  just  rights,  it  is  said 
that  she  has  assented  to  the  line,  and  hence,  that  we  are  called 
upon  merely  to  ratify  and  confirm  what  has  been  agreed  upon  by 
the  parties  immediately  interested  in  the  controversy.  In  this 
condition  of  things,”  added  the  senator,  “l  pray  you  to  hear 


348 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


these  commissioners;”  and  Mr.  Williams  read  the  letter  they  sent 
to  Mr.  Webster.  “This  is  the  assent,  if  assent  it  may  be  called, 
which  is  to  authorize  and  induce  the  Senate  to  ratify  the  treaty. 
What  is  it?  A clear,  strong  and  convincing  argument  against 
submitting  to  the  terms  proposed;  and  concluding  that,  if  the 
deliberate  conviction  of  her  sister  States  shall  pronounce  the  pro- 
posed bomidary  and  equivalents  honorable  and  expedient,  even  if 
that  judgment  shall  lead  to  a surrender  of  a portion  of  the  birth- 
right of  the  people  of  Maine,  the  commissioners  have  determined 
to  overco7ne  their  objections  to  the  proposals  so  far  as  to  say  that  if, 
upon  mature  consideration,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall 
advise  and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  upon  those 
terms  and  conditions,  they  give  the  assent  of  Maine  thereto.”  ^ 

In  closing  his  speech  Mr.  Williams  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution, and  asked  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  its  adoption: 
“Resolved,  That  the  treaty  and  documents  now  under  considera- 
tion be  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  with 
instructions  to  report  a resolution  directing  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  take  immediate  possession  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory, and  to  report  such  contingent  measures  as,  in  their  opinion, 
may  be  necessary  to  maintain  the  just  right  of  the  nation.”  The 
resolution  was  lost:  yeas  8,  nays  31.^ 

Mr.  Calhoun,  of  South  Carolina,  also  addressed  the  Senate.* 
Reviewing  the  Senate  discussion,  he  asked,  “Are  the  objections 
to  the  boundary  as  actually  agreed  on,  and  the  stipulations  con- 
nected with  it,  such  as  ought  to  cause  its  rejection?”  This  ques- 
tion, he  said,  belonged  much  more  to  the  State  of  Maine  than  to 

'^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  52-56. 

"^Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  1. 

® The  printed  records  of  the  Senate  do  not  indicate  on  which  day  of  the 
debate  Mr.  Calhoun  delivered  this  speech.  In  the  fourth  volume  (page  212) 
of  the  Works  of  John  C.  Calhoun  (D.  Appleton  & Co.,  New  York,  1854),  he 
is  said  to  have  spoken  on  August  28th.  But  the  Senate  was  not  in  session  on 
that  day.  In  fact,  the  Senate’s  consent  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  was 
given  on  August  20th.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  date,  August  28th, 
may  be  a misprint  for  August  18th. 


THE  ASHBURTON  TREATY  RATIFIED. 


349 


the  Union.  It  is  her  sovereignty  and  soil  largely  that  are  in  dis- 
pute, and  it  belongs  to  her  in  the  first  place  to  say  what  should  be 
done.  The  rest  of  the  Union  should  defend  her  just  claims.  So 
the  controversy  has  been  regarded  from  the  first.  President  Jack- 
son  would  have  agreed  to  the  king  of  Holland’s  award  had  not 
Maine  objected;  and  to  overcome  her  objection  he  was  prepared, 
in  order  to  get  her  consent,  to  recommend  that  Congress  should 
give  her  one  million  acres  of  the  public  domain,  worth  at  least  a 
million  and  a quarter  of  dollars.  Shall  the  government  now 
reverse  its  course  and  refuse  to  agree  to  that  to  which  Maine  has 
assented?  It  has  been  said,  continued  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  this 
assent  was  coerced.  It  is  true  that  Maine  desired  a more  favor- 
able boundary;  but  when  the  alternative  of  another  reference  to 
arbitration  was  presented,  she  waived  her  objection  because  of  the 
risk,  uncertainty  and  vexation  of  another  submission  of  her  claims 
to  arbitration,  and  left  it  to  the  Senate  to  decide  on  the  general 
merits  of  the  treaty  as  it  relates  to  the  whole  Union.  In  so  doing, 
Maine  acted  wisely,  patriotically.  She  has  lost  territory,  even  if 
the  treaty  is  compared  with  the  award  of  the  king  of  Holland;  but 
as  an  offset  she  has  secured  great  and  important  advantages  by 
the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  John,  while  if  to  this  is  added  the 
money  Maine  is  to  receive  for  the  expense  of  defending  the  terri- 
tory, about  $200,000,  and  $150,000  in  consequence  of  her  assent 
to  the  boundary,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  state  has  not  made  a bad 
exchange,  as  compared  with  the  award. ^ 

The  closing  speech  in  the  debate  was  made  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  of 
Pennsylvania.  A noteworthy  part  of  the  speech  was  that  in 
which  he  reviewed  the  history  of  the  negotiation  between  Mr. 
Webster  and  Lord  Ashburton.  The  various  stages  by  which  the 
British  minister  obtained  important  concessions  were  mentioned, 
also  the  way  by  which  the  Maine  commissioners  were  led  on  step 
by  step  to  give  their  conditional  assent  to  the  treaty.  Concerning 
the  right  of  way  over  the  disputed  territory  for  which  the  British 
government  asked,  Mr.  Buchanan  insisted  that  if  this  was  to  be 

'^Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  49-51. 


350 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


surrendered,  the  navigation  of  the  St.  John  would  be  the  natural 
equivalent;  but  if,  in  addition  to  this.  Great  Britain  asked  a ces- 
sion of  soil  and  sovereignty  north  of  the  St.  John,  a fair  equiva- 
lent would  be  a surrender  to  Maine  of  the  strip  of  land  north  of 
Eel  River  on  the  right  bank  of  the  St.  John,  thus  establishing  a 
river  boundary  between  Maine  and  New  Brunswick.  This,  he 
said,  was  the  confident  expectation  of  Maine  according  to  her 
commissioners;  but  they  were  informed  that  Lord  Ashburton  was 
“restrained  by  his  instructions  from  yielding  the  island  of  Grand 
Manan,  or  any  of  the  islands  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  or  even  any 
portion  of  the  narrow  strip  of  territory  that  lies  between  the  due 
north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  and  the  St.  John, 
above  Eel  river,  as  an  equivalent  for  any  portion  of  the  territory 

claimed  by  Maine  as  within  her  boundaries It  was  here 

that  the  rights  of  that  state,  and  of  the  United  States,  were  aban- 
doned. If  Lord  Ashburton’s  instructions  prohibited  him  from 
surrendering  this  strip  of  territory,  new  instructions  could  and 
would  have  been  obtained,  if  they  had  been  found  necessary. 
According  to  his  own  declaration.  Lord  Ashburton  could  not  have 
surrendered  the  Madawaska  territory  south  of  the  St.  John,  yet 
he  did  surrender  it  even  before  it  was  possible  for  him  to  get  new 
instructions  from  England.  When  the  Maine  Commissioners  were 
induced  to  yield  this  point,  all  that  they  had  so  long  contended 
for  was  abandoned.” 

Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  so  forceful  in  the  latter  part  of  his 
speech.  “Thus,”  he  said,  “have  we  yielded  to  a foreign  power 
that  ancient  highland  boundary  for  which  our  fathers  fought. 
Thus  has  it  been  blotted  out  from  the  treaty  which  acknowledged 
our  independence.  Thus  has  England  reclaimed  an  important 
portion  of  that  territory  which  had  been  wrested  from  her  by  the 
bravery  and  the  blood  of  our  Revolutionary  fathers.”  The  res- 
toration to  England  of  “our  mountain  boundary”  figured  largely 
in  this  part  of  Mr.  Buchanan’s  speech.  Its  value  to  England  in 
case  of  war  was  magnified.  “Along  the  base  of  these  mountains 
she  can,  and  she  will,”  he  said,  “establish  fortifications  and  mili- 


THE  ASHBURTON  TREATY  RATIFIED. 


351 


tary  posts  from  which  she  may  at  once  penetrate  into  the  very 

heart  of  Maine Why  did  Lord  Ashburton  insist  upon 

its  surrender  with  so  much  pertinacity  and  zeal  ? Because  it  not 
only  covered  Quebec  and  Lower  Canada  from  our  assaults,  but 
exposed  our  territorj-  to  the  assaults  of  England,  without  any 
interposing  barrier.  On  the  east,  on  the  north,  and  on  the  west, 
Maine  is  now  left  naked  and  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  our  domi- 
neering and  insatiable  neighbor.  ’ ’ ^ 

It  is  doubtful  if  words  like  these  could  have  had  any  other  effect 
than  to  weaken  the  impression  that  Mr.  Buchanan  sought  to  make. 
Evudently  the  partisan  tone  of  the  speech  in  places  was  not  help- 
ful. So,  too,  in  closing  the  speech  the  speaker  failed  to  convince 
his  associates.  An  amendment  to  the  treaty,  proposed  by  Mr. 
Buchanan,  and  offered  by  another  senator,  failed  of  adoption  by  a 
vote  of  34  to  10,  and  on  Saturday,  August  20th,  the  Senate  con- 
sented to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  by  a vote  of  39  yeas  to 
9 nays.* 

The  Maine  senators  in  voting  divided  on  party  lines.  With 
reference  to  Maine’s  contention  as  to  the  boundary  line  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  and  the  possibility  of  drawing  that  line  on  the  face 
of  the  earth,  Mr.  Evans,  a Whig,  did  not  differ  from  his  colleague, 
Mr.  Williams,  a Democrat.  In  fact,  as  has  already  appeared  in 
this  reference  to  the  debate,  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  Senate  as  to  the  rightfulness  of  Maine’s  claim.  Mr.  Evans 
accepted  Mr.  Webster’s  view  that  arbitration  had  been  tried  and 
failed;  that  the  country  was  weary  of  controversy;  and  that  if  any 

^Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  108. 
For  the  whole  speech  see  pages  101-110. 

* Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were  Messrs.  Archer,  Barrow,  Bates, 
Bayard,  Berrien,  Calhoun,  Choate,  Clayton,  Crafts,  Crittenden,  Cuthbert, 
Dayton,  Evans,  Fulton,  Graham,  Henderson,  Huntington,  Kerr,  King,  Man- 
gum,  Merrick,  Miller,  Morehead,  Phelps,  Porter,  Preston,  Rives,  Sevier, 
Simmons,  Smith  of  Indiana,  Sprague,  Tallmadge,  Tappan,  Walker,  White, 
Woodbridge,  Woodbury,  Wright,  Young.  Those  who  voted  in  the  negative 
were  Messrs.  Allen,  Bagby,  Benton,  Buchanan,  Conrad,  Lynn,  Smith  of 
Connecticut,  Sturgeon,  Williams.  Congressional  Globe,  27th  Congress,  Third 
Session,  2. 


352 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


satisfactory  settlement  was  to  be  obtained  it  must  be  in  the  nature 
of  a compromise,  with  a suitable  indemnity  for  Maine’s  sacrifices 
and  with  obvious  international  advantages.  Having  recently 
entered  the  Senate,  Mr.  Evans  did  not  participate  in  the  debate. 
At  a dinner  given  to  Lord  Ashburton  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
September  1,  1842,  however,  replying  to  a toast  in  honor  of  Daniel 
Webster,  Mr.  Evans  gave  strong  expression  to  his  own  convic- 
tions as  to  the  services  of  the  secretary  of  state  in  connection  with 
the  treaty,  making  mention  of  him  as  one  who  had  “borne  up  the 
national  honor  and  character  and  interests,  in  the  laborious  and 
arduous  task  assigned  to  him,  in  a manner  of  which  I trust  every 
American  citizen  will  be  proud.” 


CHAPTER  XX. 

The  Treaty  in  Maine. 


S the  treaty  negotiations  drew  to  a close,  anxious  interest 
was  manifested  in  Maine  with  reference  to  the  results 
reached.  The  Eastern  Argus  (Portland),  July  8,  1842, 
mentioned  a New  York  rumor  “entitled  to  credit,”  that 
the  boundary  question  had  been  settled.^  “it  looks  rather  improb- 
able,” the  Argus  added.  In  the  same  paper,  July  11th,  reference 
was  made  to  other  rumors.  It  had  been  confidently  stated,  the 
Argus  remarked,  that  a satisfactory  arrangement  had  been  made; 
and  just  as  confidently,  upon  apparently  as  good  authority,  the 
reader  was  told  that  the  statement  had  been  denied.  Prelimina- 
ries, it  was  suggested,  had  probably  been  arranged,  which,  if  car- 
ried into  effect,  would  be  satisfactory  to  Maine;  but  nothing  more 
could  be  affirmed,  “if  there  should  be  no  settlement,  Maine  will 
have  done  her  duty  nobly  and  honorably,”  was  the  added  state- 
ment. It  was  suggested,  however,  that  if  a satisfactory  settle- 
ment should  be  made,  and  the  river  St.  John  should  become  “the 
substantial  line  to  the  mouth,  with  its  free  navigation  conceded, 
the  arrangement  will  be  worth  millions.”  On  July  15th,  the 
Argus  was  still  without  more  definite  information,  but  it  exhorted 
its  readers  to  be  patient,  and  give  little  heed  to  rumors,  whether 
favorable  or  unfavorable.  On  the  18th,  its  faith  in  the  diplomatic 
ability  of  the  secretary  of  state  was  strong,  and  to  strengthen  the 
hearts  of  its  readers  these  words  were  addressed  to  them:  “We 
believe  it  will  turn  out  that  Mr.  Webster  has  conducted  our  for- 
eign negotiations  with  skill  and  industry  and  especially  in  the 
matter  of  the  boundary,  in  which  this  State  has  so  deep  an  inter- 
est.” After  more  than  a week  of  added  watchful  waiting,  the 

^New  York  Comynercial  Advertiser,  July  5,  1842. 

23 


354 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


Argzis  was  able,  on  July  27tli,  to  inform  its  readers  that  the  treaty 
had  been  signed,  “judge  Preble  arrived  in  town  this  morning, 
bringing  this  information,”  was  the  announcement.  How  much 
information  concerning  the  terms  of  the  treaty  was  disclosed  by 
the  newly  arrived  commissioner  was  not  stated.  “The  treaty  will 
now  go  the  Senate,”  the  editor  added,  “and  if  approved  by  two- 
thirds  of  that  body,  the  question  will  be  settled.  But  if  rejected, 
we  shall  have  the  ground  to  go  over  again.”  Hasty  criticisms, 
based  on  rumors,  were  deprecated.  Certain  congressmen  received 
this  needed  counsel:  “We  are  sorry  to  see  a premature  agitation 
of  the  subject  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  terms  of  the 
treaty  should  not  be  discussed  by  the  members  till  acted  upon  by 
the  Senate.  If  confirmed  and  appropriations  shall  become  neces- 
sary in  order  to  carry  it  into  effect,  as  is  intimated  in  well  informed 
circles,  the  members  of  the  House  will  then  have  an  opportunity 
to  censure  or  approve  as  they  may  deem  proper;  but  till  then  they 
should  do  neither.”  The  following  wise  words  also  were  added: 
“We  shall  be  sorry  to  see  any  attempt  to  make  party  capital  out 
of  this  question.  It  is  entirely  national.” 

The  Age  (Augusta)  informed  its  readers  on  July  15th  that  the 
latest  rumors  from  various  quarters  concerning  the  treaty  were 
believed  to  have  no  foundation,  and  the  editor  added:  “ We  scarcely 
need  repeat  our  often  reiterated  opinion  that  no  agreement  can  be 
consummated  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  expressed  by  the  Leg- 
islature of  Maine  during  their  late  extra  session,  which  terms  and 
conditions  are  the  only  ones  Maine  can  honorably  accept.”  On 
July  29th,  the  Age  announced  that  an  agreement  in  relation  to 
the  boundary  had  been  agreed  upon.  Great  excitement,  it  stated, 
was  manifested  at  Washington  on  Saturday,  when  the  terms  of 
the  treaty  were  made  known.  “A  letter,  under  that  date,  from 
an  intelligent  source,  characterizes  the  feeling  as  amounting  to 
‘exasperation.’  ” Reference  was  made  to  the  New  York  Herald 
as  claiming  that  the  treaty  would  be  rejected  by  a large  vote;  and 
the  Age  added:  “We  cannot  hesitate  to  say,  that  unless  it  differs 
greatly  from  the  newspaper  accounts  of  it,  it  is  not  such  a treaty 


THE  TREATY  IN  MAINE. 


355 


as  Maine  was  entitled  to  or  expected.  It  excites  here,  so  far  as 

we  can  learn,  universal  disappointment Momentous 

interests  now  hang  upon  the  decision  of  the  Senate.  We  trust 
that  it  will  do  its  duty  with  a conscientious  reference  at  once  to 
the  importance  of  settling  a dangerous  and  exciting  question,  and 
to  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  country.  We  trust  especially 
that  it  will  yield  no  point  of  permanent  national  security  for  the 
sake  of  a temporary  and  delusive  quiet.” 

The  Kennebec  Journal  (Augusta),  also  on  July  29th,  announced 
that  the  Maine  commissioners  had  assented  to  an  arrangement 
agreed  upon  by  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty,  citing  the  Washing- 
ton correspondent  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  who,  writing  to 
that  paper  July  23rd,  stated  that  the  commissioners  signed  the 
agreement  on  the  evening  of  the  22nd.  “The  terms,”  it  was 
added,  “were  attacked  in  the  House  this  morning  by  Mr.  Gwin,^ 
of  Mississippi,  upon  the  strength  of  a mere  rumor.  He  pro- 
nounced the  treaty,  if  the  rumor  was  true,  disgraceful  in  the 
extreme,  and  he  said  with  a flourish  of  trumpets  that  he  would 
sooner  go  to  war  than  sanction  it.  Mr.  Fessenden,*  of  Maine, 
very  promptly  and  very  handsomely  rebuked  this  interference 
from  a distant  representative,  and  assured  him  that  Maine,  her 
commissioners  and  her  senators  and  representatives,  could  take 
care  of  the  interests  of  Maine  quite  as  well  as  a Mississippi  repre- 
sentative.” * 

The  Age  (Augusta)  continued  to  express  its  dissatisfaction  with 
the  treaty  as  reports  concerning  its  provisions  reached  the  State 
capital.  The  following  appeared  on  August  5th:  “We  must  still 
express  our  decided  disapprobation  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  as 
yet  understood,  with  the  advantage  of  a fuller  confidence  that  we 
express  the  opinion  of  this  section  of  the  State.  Four-fifths,  at 

1 William  M.  Gwin,  later  United  States  senator  from  California. 

^William  Pitt  Fessenden,  who  began  his  congressional  career  in  1841  as  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

This  occurred  in  a debate  on  the  army  bill,  and  Mr.  Black,  of  Georgia, 
was  inclined  to  support  Mr.  Gwin. 


356 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


least,  of  those  we  happen  to  see,  denounce  those  terms,  as  they 
are  reported  to  exist.”  A week  later,  August  12th,  the  Age  had 
given  some  attention  to  the  many  who  held  other  opinions  and 
remarked:  “We  respect  the  judgment  of  that  great  body  of  intel- 
ligent men  who  approve  the  treaty,  and  we  do  not  underrate  the 
force  of  the  arguments  in  its  favor.  But  we  believe  nevertheless, 
and  most  conscientiously,  that  when  all  the  British  objects  effected 
by  it  are  understood,  it  will  be  universally  denounced  as  a disas- 
trous one.” 

The  Kennebec  Jotirnal,  on  the  same  date,  confirmed  its  earlier 
statement  that  the  terms  of  settlement,  made  by  the  negotiators 
of  the  treaty,  had  received  the  assent  of  the  Maine  commission- 
ers, representing  equally  both  political  parties  in  the  State;  and 
expressed  disapproval  of  all  efforts  that  had  as  their  end  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  treaty. 

But  opposition  continued.  The  readers  of  the  Age  were  asked 
on  August  19th,  if  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances  the  State  of 
Maine  had  not  been  “most  egregiously  humbugged.”  At  a meet- 
ing of  the  citizens  of  Leeds  on  August  22nd,  resolutions  were 
adopted  denying  the  right  of  the  United  States,  with  or  without 
the  consent  of  Maine,  to  cede  any  portion  of  the  State  embraced 
within  the  boundaries  described  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  Among 
these  resolutions  was  the  following:  “That  we  give  our  unswerv- 
ing opposition  to  all  men,  of  whatever  political  party,  who  shall 
in  any  way  support  any  treaty  purporting  to  insure  peace  at  the 
expense  of  our  soil  and  of  our  honor.”  The  Kennebec  Journal, 
August  24th,  referring  to  this  meeting,  deprecated  such  public 
agitation.  In  its  view  it  was  no  slight  gain  at  least  to  have  “a 
subject  of  vexation,  excitement  and  expense  to  both  the  state  and 
nation,”  at  length  at  rest. 

The  ratification  of  the  treaty  by  the  Senate  was  known  in  Port- 
land on  August  24th,  and  on  the  26th  the  treaty  was  printed  in 
full  in  the  Eastern  Argus.  It  appeared  in  the  Kennebec  Journal 
on  September  2nd,  and  in  the  Age  on  September  9th.  Public 
agitation,  however,  did  not  cease.  The  treaty  continued  to  be 


THE  TREATY  IN  MAINE. 


357 


the  principal  topic  of  consideration.  The  Argus,  August  25th, 
stated  that  the  Maine  commissioners  consented  to  the  treaty  con- 
ditionally, and  in  this  way  laid  the  entire  responsibility  of  its 
ratification  upon  the  Senate.  “They  [the  commissioners]  pro- 
tested against  some  of  its  provisions,  and  took  the  decided  ground 
that  it  was  not  what  Maine  had  a right  to  ask;  but  if  the  Sen- 
ate thought  for  the  sake  of  the  general  good,  if  her  sister  States 
thought  she  ought  to  make  the  sacrifice,  she  would  do  it.  The 
consent  was  reluctantly  given,  and  then  only  conditionally. 
The  Maine  Commissioners  did  not  advise  its  ratification,  and  the 
Senate  could  in  no  wise  be  affected  in  its  favor  by  any  action  of 
the  agents  from  this  State.” 

The  Age,  in  commenting  upon  this  statement,  held  that  it  must 
be  regarded  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  opinions  of  Com- 
missioners Preble  and  Kavanagh.  It  was  more  than  doubtful, 
however,  whether  it  was  equally  authoritative  as  to  the  opinions 
of  the  Whig  commissioners,  Kent  and  Otis.  As  to  the  Demo- 
cratic commissioners,  their  situation  while  in  Washington  was 
sketched  in  these  words:  “Surrounded  by  difficulties,  importuned 
by  gentlemen  from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  receiving  no  support 
from  our  Massachusetts  co-proprietors  of  the  disputed  territory, 
and,  more  than  all,  most  basely  betrayed  by  the  secretary  of  state, 
Messrs.  Preble  and  Kavanagh,  in  view  of  the  alternative  held  up 
to  them  by  way  of  intimidation,  and  in  view  of  the  false  position 
into  which  Maine  might  be  thrown  by  misrepresentations  of  this 
refusal,  did  determine  so  far  to  assent  to  the  treaty  as  to  permit 
it  to  go  to  the  Senate  for  their  decision.  In  the  language  of  the 
Argus  they  ‘threw  the  entire  responsibility  of  its  ratification  upon 
the  Senate;’  so  governing  themselves  that  that  body  ‘could  in  no 
wise  be  affected  in  its  favor’  from  any  action  or  expression  of 
opinion  on  their  part.  Let  this  assent  be  regarded  as  wise  or 
unwise,  it  does  not,  under  the  circumstances,  authorize  the  apol- 
ogists of  Daniel  Webster  in  vouching  in  his  behalf,  the  authority 
of  Messrs.  Preble  and  Kavanagh,  and  leaves  his  conduct  entirely 
without  excuse  or  palliation.  And  it  also  leaves  the  Democracy 


358 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


entirely  free  to  condemn  the  treaty  and  its  author,  without  any 
impeachment  of  the  integrity  of  Messrs.  Preble  and  Kavanagh, 
or  any  suspicion  of  their  anxious  and  laborious  efforts  at  Wash- 
ington honorably  to  discharge  the  trust  confided  to  them.” 

At  the  same  time  the  action  of  the  Whig  commissioners  received 
from  the  Whig  papers  in  Maine  like  support.  On  their  arrival 
in  Washington,  and  during  the  progress  of  the  negotiations,  the 
most  urgent  appeals  were  made  to  them  with  reference  to  the 
proposed  Webster- Ashburton  negotiations.  Moreover,  it  was  not 
a matter  concerning  Maine  only,  but  the  whole  United  States. 
Considerations  concerning  a very  difficult  situation  were  pressed 
upon  them,  and  they  had  discharged  a great  public  duty  honor- 
ably and  patriotically. 

In  this  way  a strong  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  treaty 
was  at  length  developed  in  the  greater  part  of  the  state.  In  the 
extreme  eastern  portion  of  Maine,  however,  condemnation  of 
the  treaty,  “as  a shame  and  a disgrace,”  was  quite  general.  The 
Fro7itier  Journal,  a Democratic  paper  published  in  Calais,  reported 
toward  the  close  of  1842,  that  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the 
people  living  along  the  border  was  one  of  decided  opposition. 

Up  to  this  time,  the  Maine  commissioners  had  given  no  public 
account  of  their  connection  with  the  boundary  settlement.  Such 
a statement,  however,  appeared  on  January  4,  1843,  in  a report 
to  Governor  Fairfield  of  their  official  actions.  At  the  outset  ref- 
erence was  made  to  the  general  understanding,  before  the  com- 
missioners proceeded  to  Washington,  that  the  special  minister 
from  Great  Britain  was  clothed  with  the  most  ample  powers  and 
furnished  with  the  most  liberal  and  conciliatory  instructions,  giv- 
ing promise  of  a satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  boundary  difficul- 
ties, provided  Maine,  on  her  part,  would  exercise  a proper  spirit 
of  magnanimity  and  conciliation.  It  was  soon  learned,  however, 
that  instead  of  being  clothed  with  full  power  for  arranging  a 
mutual  exchange  of  territory  in  order  to  provide  a better  commu- 
nication between  Lower  Canada  and  New  Brunswick,  Lord  Ash- 
burton had  no  authority  to  concede  to  Maine  as  an  equivalent  a 


THE  TREATY  IN  MAINE. 


359 


single  acre  of  British  soil,  not  even  the  smallest  of  the  islands  in 
Passamaquoddy  Bay.  In  fact  at  one  time,  when  the  negotiators 
had  come  to  a deadlock.  Lord  Ashburton  showed  from  his  in- 
structions that  he  had  put  the  most  liberal  construction  upon  his 
powers.  The  commissioners  were  satisfied,  therefore,  that  the 
terms,  as  finally  incorporated  in  the  treaty,  w^ere  the  most  favor- 
able to  Maine  that  could  have  been  secured. 

There  remained  to  the  commissioners,  accordingly,  only  one  of 
three  courses  of  procedure.  (1)  They  could  break  off  the  nego- 
tiation and  return  to  Maine.  (2)  It  w^as  not  too  late  to  adopt  the 
line  recommended  by  the  king  of  the  Netherlands.  Or  (3)  they 
could  accede  to  the  proposition  made  by  President  Tyler.  The 
considerations  that  led  to  their  acceptance  of  the  third  course 
were,  first  of  all,  that  the  proposition  came  from  the  president  of 
the  United  States  in  the  character  of  a mediator.  Then,  too,  it 
was  evidently  the  desire  of  the  whole  country  that  the  boundary 
controversy  should  now  be  settled.  The  commissioners,  also, 
were  influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  value  of  the  territory  in  the 
region  of  the  highlands  was  of  comparatively  little  account. 
“Should  we  then,  for  that  strip,”  they  asked,  “forego  all  the 
advantages  of  a speedy  and  amicable  settlement  of  the  contro- 
versy?   Maine  is  a commercial  State.  Her  commerce  is 

one  of  her  principal  resources.  She  is  deeply  interested  both  in- 
ternally and  externally  in  the  preservation  of  peace.  It  is  peace, 
and  not  war,  that  is  to  people  her  unoccupied  lands  and  the  rich 
valley  of  the  Aroostook.  It  is  peace  which  is  to  develop  her 
resources,  and  give  scope  to  her  enterprising,  hardy  and  indus- 
trious population.  By  settling  the  difficulty,  Maine  secures  peace 
and  quiet  within  her  borders.  She  brings  her  best  settling  lands 
into  market,  and  secures  a rapid  increase  of  population,  where 
she  most  needs  it.  She  puts  an  end  to  further  encroachments,  and 
to  that  border  warfare,  and  those  depredations,  which  have  given 
rise  to  so  much  trouble,  and  subjected  her  to  so  much  expense. 
She  will  receive  into  her  treasury  in  money  more  than  all  the  ter- 
ritory she  gives  up  would  ever  yield  her.  She  secures  an  indem- 


360 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


nity  for  a large  part  of  the  expenses,  already  incurred  by  her,  in 
protecting  and  exploring  the  territory.  And  furthermore,  she 
secures  the  right  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  John,  and  of  a 
British  market  for  the  products  of  the  forest  and  of  the  soil  that 
are  grown  within  its  valley.  On  the  whole,  from  considerations 
such  as  these,  and  on  a careful  reviewing  of  the  whole  matter 
with  a single  eye  to  the  interests  of  Maine,  we  were  induced  to 
yield  our  conditional  assent  to  the  proposition  made  to  us,  as 
modified  and  engrafted  into  the  treaty;  and  we  now  submit  our 
doings  in  that  behalf  to  the  discernment  and  sound  judgment  of 
the  legislature  and  people  of  Maine.” 

This  report,  signed  by  the  four  commissioners,  was  undoubtedly 
in  the  hands  of  Governor  Fairfield  when  he  penned  his  annual 
message  to  the  legislature,  delivered  on  January  7,  1843.  In  his 
reference  to  the  treaty,  and  the  adjustment  of  long  standing  dif- 
ferences with  reference  to  the  boundary  between  Maine  and  the 
British  provinces,  he  felt  constrained  to  say  that  the  result  of 
the  negotiation,  even  if  it  was  preferable  to  further  procrastina- 
tion and  another  foreign  arbitration,  was  far  different  from  what 
the  people  of  Maine  had  anticipated.  “l  would  not  be  under- 
stood as  intending  to  cast  censure  upon  the  commissioners  of  this 
State,”  he  said.  “They  were  selected  by  the  Legislature  as  gen- 
tlemen of  elevated  standing — commanding  in  a high  degree,  the 
confidence  of  the  public,  and  as  eminently  qualified  for  such  a 
service.”  But  none  the  less  the  governor  regarded  the  result,  so 
far  as  the  treaty  was  concerned,  a great  disappointment.  If  a 
portion  of  the  territory  of  Maine  ‘ ‘was  necessary  for  the  conven- 
ience of  the  British  government,  this  State  had  a right  to  expect, 
on  its  being  yielded,  that  a full  and  ample  equivalent  in  other 
territory  would  have  been  freely  tendered.  Towards  the  fulfill- 
ment of  such  an  expectation  there  has  not  been  the  slightest 

approximation If  in  this,  Maine  ‘has  not  been  treated 

as  she  has  endeavored  to  deserve,’  it  is  far  from  being  the  first 
instance.  All  her  injuries,  however,  cannot  shake  her  sense  of 
duty.  As  a member  of  the  Union  she  will  continue  to  be  what 


THE  TREATY  IN  MAINE. 


361 


she  has  ever  been,  faithful  and  true.  And  if  she  could  be  satis- 
fied that  the  sacrifice  was  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  country, 
she  could  in  that  find  ample  consolation.  To  insolent  and 
unfounded  pretension  she  can  yield  nothing;  to  the  cause  of 
patriotism  and  the  Union,  everything.”  ^ 

The  report  of  the  commissioners  was  referred  by  the  Maine  Leg- 
islature of  1843  to  a joint  select  committee,  but  the  committee  did 
not  present  its  report  until  March  21st  and  therefore  at  the  close 
of  the  session.  In  some  parts  of  the  state,  especially  in  the  east- 
ern part,  there  was  still  strong  opposition  to  the  treaty.  The 
Frontier  Journal^  published  in  Calais,  was  exceedingly  emphatic 
in  its  denunciation  of  the  treaty,  and  as  late  as  December,  1842, 
claimed  that  its  own  attitude^  was  the  attitude  of  a large  propor- 
tion of  the  people  of  Maine,  adding  this  prophecy:  “The  day 
will  come  when  not  only  Maine,  but  through  the  whole  country 
that  treaty  will  be  universally  execrated;  and  within  three  years 
from  the  present  moment,  the  Argus  itself  will  be  as  loud  in  its 
condemnation  as  it  is  now  in  its  praise.  ‘Mark  that!’  ” 

But  those  in  Maine  who  were  opposed  to  the  treaty  found  their 
disappointment  no  greater  than  that  of  the  joint  select  committee. 
Their  report,  however,  did  not  overlook  the  eminent  claims  to 
respect  which  the  commissioners  from  Maine  of  both  parties  were 
entitled  to  share.  Nevertheless,  the  committee  felt  constrained 
to  add  that  higher  considerations  than  regard  for  any  individuals 
compelled  them  to  express  the  belief  that  the  commissioners,  in 
the  settlement  at  Washington,  assented  “to  terms  not  contem- 
plated by  the  Legislature  or  people  of  Maine.”  The  committee 
was  not  insensible  to  “the  pressure  of  adverse  influences”  to 
which  the  commissioners  were  subjected,  and  “the  tyrannical 
threats  addressed  to  them  by  the  diplomatic  secretary  of  the 
United  States.”  But  the  committee  would  have  been  pleased  if 
the  commissioners  had  taken  a different  course,  as  these  words 
follow:  “Better,  indeed,  had  all  been  braved.  Better,  indeed, 

^Resolves  of  Maine,  1843,  242,  243. 

The  contrast  was  with  the  attitude  of  the  Portland  Argus. 


362 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


had  the  American  secretary  been  told  that  Maine  would  lose  her 
own  territory  by  honorable  arbitration  rather  than  sacrifice  an 
acre  to  the  spirit  of  unworthy  compromise.  Better,  indeed,  if 
our  sister  States  had  been  admonished  that  they  had  degraded 
themselves  as  well  as  us,  when  they  asked  us  to  yield  our  part  of 
a common  American  birthright.” 

Manifestly  these  words,  expressing  strong  political  feeling  and 
action,  should  be  read  only  in  connection  with  the  reading  of  the 
Maine  commissioners’  report,  which  fairly  and  fully  records  the 
difficulties  that  the  commissioners  encountered  in  Washington, 
and  also  the  reasons  by  which  at  length  they  were  constrained 
most  reluctantly  to  yield  the  assent  of  the  state  to  the  boundary 
provisions  of  the  treaty.  That  action,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances,  the  commissioners  regarded  as  fully  warranted. 
According  to  the  best  light  they  possessed,  they  endeavored  to 
discharge  a duty  which  they  had  not  sought,  but  which  the 
state,  through  its  chosen  representatives,  had  solemnly  laid  upon 
them;  and  it  may  confidently  be  said,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than 
three-quarters  of  a century,  that  time  has  justified  their  action. 

It  is  true  that  Maine  did  not  receive  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty 
the  larger  compensation  she  spurned  ten  years  before.  Referring 
to  this  fact  Governor  Washburn  once  remarked,  “There  is  no 
part  in  the  history  of  Maine  in  which  I take  greater  satisfaction 
than  this — that,  while  feeling  keenly  the  injustice  done  to  her, 
when  once  the  sacrifice  became  inevitable,  she  was  too  proud  to 
haggle  about  the  price.”  ^ 

Maine  Historical  Society  Coll.,  First  Series,  VIII,  105. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

The  Treaty  in  the  British  Pareiament. 


ORD  Palmerston,  who  had  been  the  British  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs  during  the  larger  part  of  the  dec- 
ade preceding  the  Ashburton- Webster  negotiations,  was 
not  pleased  with  the  settlement.  It  was  not  such  a set- 
tlement as  he  had  desired  to  obtain  during  his  term  of  office. 
Evidently  he  had  been  kept  well  informed  concerning  the  opin- 
ions of  prominent  ofl&cials  in  Canada  and  the  maritime  provinces, 
both  before  and  after  the  negotiations;  and  on  March  21,  1843, 
in  the  House  of  Commons  he  asked  for  copies  or  extracts  of 
the  communications  between  the  British  government  and  Lord 
Ashburton  with  reference  to  the  treaty.  There  were  persons  in 
England,  he  said,  who  were  disposed  to  approve  of  the  treaty. 
There  was  nobody,  he  believed,  who  did  not  think  it  a bad  and 
very  disadvantageous  bargain  for  England.  Doubtless  there  were 
some  people  in  the  country  who  were  so  anxious  to  have  the  dis- 
pute settled,  that  they  were  glad  to  have  it  settled  upon  any  terms, 
even  upon  the  disadvantageous  conditions  contained  in  the  treaty. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  were  persons,  of  whom  he  wished  to  be 
regarded  as  one,  who  considered  the  transaction  deserving  of 
blame.  The  negotiations  had  not  been  skilfully  conducted.  The 
tone  of  the  British  representative  was  undignified  throughout, 
and  the  terms  agreed  upon  were  unnecessarily  disadvantageous  to 
Great  Britain.  Lord  Ashburton  should  have  insisted  that  Great 
Britain  was  entitled  to  the  whole  territory  in  dispute.  On  the 
contrary,  he  allowed  Mr.  Webster  to  place  the  negotiation  on  the 
ground  that  the  whole  territory  belonged  of  right  to  the  United 
States;  and  all  that  England  was  to  be  permitted  to  retain  was  to 
be  bought  by  her  for  considerations  and  equivalents.  “But  there 


364 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


is  the  treaty,”  he  added;  it  has  been  concluded,  and  it  has  been 
ratified.”  ^ 

Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  reply,  stated  that  Mr.  Webster  had  met  with 
censure  in  some  quarters  in  his  own  country  similar  to  that  which 
had  assailed  Lord  Ashburton;  but  he  believed  that  both  negotia- 
tors were  equally  animated  by  a spirit  of  sincere  regard  for  the 
interests  of  their  country,  uninfluenced  by  political  considera- 
tions. As  to  the  plan  on  which  the  negotiations  were  conducted 
he  believed  it  would  have  been  unwise  to  have  attempted  further 
explorations  and  inquiries  by  commissioners.^ 

Lord  Palmerston,  in  his  remarks,  had  referred  to  the  Sparks 
red  line  map  as  confirming  the  British  claim,  and  had  blamed  Mr. 
Webster  for  withholding  from  Lord  Ashburton  such  important 
evidence.  Replying  to  this  lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
American  secretary  of  state,  the  British  prime  minister  thought  it 
rather  hard,  with  their  knowledge  of  the  practices  of  negotiators, 
that  anyone  should  expect  that  the  negotiator  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  should  be  held  bound  to  disclose,  to  the  diplomat 
with  whom  he  was  in  conference,  the  weak  parts  of  his  case. 
“This  map,  it  is  true,  was  found  in  the  archives  of  the  foreign 
ofi&ce  at  Paris,”  he  said;  “and  a letter  of  Dr.  Franklin’s  also  has 
been  found,  having  reference  to  some  map;  but  there  is  no  direct 
connection  between  the  map  so  found  and  the  letter  of  Dr.  Frank- 
lin. In  general  there  is  such  a connection  as  in  the  case  of  maps 
referred  to  in  dispatches;  but  there  is  none  in  this  case.  There 
is  nothing  to  show  that  the  map  so  found  is  the  identical  map 
referred  to  by  Dr.  Franklin  in  his  letter;  and  nothing  can  be  more 
fallacious  than  relying  on  such  maps.  For  let  me  state  what  may 
be  said  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question  with  respect  to  maps. 
We  inade  inquiry  about  those  maps  in  the  foreign  office  at  Paris, 
and  we  could  find  none  such  as  that  in  question  at  first.  We 
have  not  been  so  neglectful  in  former  times  with  respect  to  the 
matter  as  the  noble  Lord  seems  to  think.  We  made  inquiries  in 

^Hansard' s Parliamentary  Debates,  LXVII,  1163,  1193-1218. 

Ub.,  LXVII,  1241. 


THE  TREATY  IN  THE  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT. 


365 


1826  and  1827,  into  the  maps  in  the  foreign  oflBce  at  Paris,  for 
the  purpose  of  throwing  light  upon  the  intentions  of  the  negotia- 
tors of  1783.  A strict  search  was  made  for  any  documents  bear- 
ing upon  the  disputed  question;  but  at  that  time  neither  letter 
nor  map  could  be  found.  However,  there  were  afterwards  dis- 
covered by  a gentleman  engaged  in  writing  a history  of  America, 
a letter  and  a certain  map,  supposed  by  him  to  be  the  map  referred 
to  in  a letter.  In  answer  to  our  first  inquiry,  as  I have  already 
stated,  no  such  map  could  be  discovered.  The  first  which  we 
received  from  the  foreign  office  at  Paris  was  a map  found  in  1783 
by  Mr.  Faden,  geographer  to  the  king  of  England.  On  that  map 
is  inscribed — ‘A  Map  of  the  Boundary  of  the  United  States,  as 
agreed  to  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  Mr.  Faden,  geographer  to  the 
king.’  Now,  sir,  that  map  placed  the  boundary  according  to  the 
American  claim,  yet  it  was  a cotemporary  map,  and  it  was  pub- 
lished by  the  geographer  to  the  British  king.  There  was  a work, 
which  I have  here,  a political  periodical  of  the  time,  published  in 
1783,  called  Bewe's  Journal.  It  gives  a full  report  of  the  debate 
in  Parliament  upon  the  treaty  then  being  concluded,  and,  in 
order  to  illustrate  the  report,  it  also  gives  a map  of  the  boundaries 
between  the  countries  as  then  agreed  to.  That  map.  Sir,  also 
adopts  the  line  claimed  by  the  United  States.  On  subsequent 
inquiry,  at  Paris,  we  found  a map,  which  must  be  the  map  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Jared  Sparks.  There  is  placed  upon  that  map  a broad 
red  line,  and  that  line  marks  out  the  boundary  as  claimed  by  the 
British.  It  is  probably  a map  by  M.  d’Anville,  of  1746,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  but  that  it  is  the  map  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Jared  Sparks;  but  we  can  trace  no  indication  of  connection 
between  it  and  the  dispatch  of  Dr.  Franklin.  To  say  that  they 
were  connected  is  a mere  unfounded  inference. 

“But  there  is  still  another  map.  Here,  in  this  country,  in  the 
library  of  the  late  king,  was  deposited  a map  by  Mitchell,  of  the 
date  of  1783 — that  map  was  in  the  possession  of  the  noble  Lord; 
but  he  did  not  communicate  its  contents  to  Mr.  Webster.  It  is 
marked  by  a broad  red  line,  and  on  that  line  is  written,  ‘Bound- 


366 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ary,  as  described  by  our  negotiator,  Mr.  Oswald;’  and  that  line 
follows  the  claim  of  the  United  States.  That  map  was  on  an 
extended  scale.  It  was  in  possession  of  the  late  king,  who  was 
particularly  curious  in  respect  to  geographical  inquiries.  On  that 
map,  I repeat,  is  placed  the  boundary  line — that  claimed  by  the 
United  States;  and  on  four  different  places  on  that  line,  ‘Bound- 
ary as  described  by  Mr.  Oswald.’  Now  I do  not  say  that  that 
was  the  boundary  ultimately  settled  by  the  negotiators;  but  noth- 
ing can  be  more  fallacious  than  founding  a claim  upon  cotempo- 
rary maps,  unless  you  can  also  prove  that  they  were  adopted  by 
the  negotiators;  and  when  the  noble  Lord  takes  it  for  granted 
that  if  we  had  resorted  to  arbitration  we  should  have  been  suc- 
cessful in  obtaining  our  claims,  I cannot  help  thinking  that  the 
matter  would  be  open  to  much  discussion.  Indeed,  I do  not 
believe  that  that  claim  of  Great  Britain  was  well-founded;  that  it 
is  a claim  which  the  negotiators  intended  to  ratify.  I cannot  say, 
either,  that  the  inquiries  which  have  been  instituted  since  Mr. 
Sparks’  discovery  have  materially  strengthened  my  conviction 
either  way.  I think  they  leave  matters  much  as  they  were,  and 
nothing,  I think,  can  be  more  delusive  than  the  expectation  that, 
if  the  question  were  referred  to  arbitrators,  the  question  would 
inevitably  have  been  given  in  your  favor,  in  consequence  of  the 
evidence  of  maps,  which  would  not  be  regarded  as  maps  recog- 
nized by  the  negotiators  themselves.  And  then.  Sir,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  maps  discovered  subsequently  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
negotiations  conducted  by  Lord  Ashburton.  The  noble  Lord 
opposite  has  stated  that  his  predecessor  in  office  had  made  all 
possible  inquiry  into  the  matter,  and  possessed  all  the  elements  of 
information  connected  with  it.  Lord  Ashburton  then  had  aright 
to  draw  the  same  conclusion.  He  had  a right  to  presume  that  he 
was  sent  abroad  in  possession  of  all  the  elements  of  information 
on  which  a satisfactory  conclusion  could  be  come  to,  and  there- 
fore the  subsequent  discovery  of  the  map  in  Paris,  even  if  it  could 
be  positively  connected  with  Dr.  Franklin’s  dispatch,  would  be 
no  ground  for  the  impeachment  of  the  treaty  of  Lord  Ashburton, 


THE  TREATY  IN  THE  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT. 


367 


or  for  proving  that  he  had  not  ably  and  honorably  discharged  his 
duties.  If  blame  should  fall  upon  anyone,  it  should  fall  upon 
those  who  have  been  conducting  these  negotiations  for  years. 
But  I think  that  I have  shown  that  no  blame  can  be  attached 
either  to  Lord  Aberdeen  or  Mr.  Canning;  that  they  did  what  they 
could  to  search  the  archives  of  the  foreign  office  at  Paris  for  infor- 
mation connected  with  the  subject.  The  documents  lately  dis- 
covered were  not  kept  in  the  political  department  of  the  French 
office,  but  in  the  historical  department,  and  it  was  thus  that  while 
they  had  eluded  former  search  they  had  come  to  be  discovered  by 
Mr.  Jared  Sparks.  Nothing  must  be  said  of  impeaching  the 
accuracy  or  good  faith  of  that  gentleman;  but  he  himself  admits 
that  the  map  which  he  discovered  could  not  be  traced  to  have  had 
any  connection  with  the  dispatch  of  Dr.  Franklin.”  ^ 

Lord  Macaulay,  who  now  was  in  the  opposition  because  of 
the  fall  of  the  Melbourne  ministry,  followed  Sir  Robert  Peel.  He 
would  have  it  understood  first  of  all  that  his  relations  with  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  so  far  as  he  had  come  into  acquaint- 
ance with  them,  had  been  marked  by  courtesy  and  kind  offices, 
and  he  could  think  of  that  great  country  not  otherwise  than  as 
composed  of  people  whose  veins  were  full  of  British  blood,  whose 
minds  were  nourished  by  British  literature,  and  whose  valuable 
institutions  were  derived  from  the  mother  country.  But,  like 
Lord  Palmerston,  he  was  dissatisfied  with  Lord  Ashburton.  He 
found  it  impossible  to  read  his  letters  without  being  struck  with 
a certain  humble,  caressing,  wheedling  tone  that  pervaded  them 
and  which  seemed  to  him  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of 
the  office  which  Lord  Ashburton  held.  He  had  other  objections. 
For  example,  the  conventional  line,  proposed  by  Mr.  Webster, 
left  the  Madawaska  settlers  south  of  the  St.  John  in  American 
territory.  Lord  Ashburton  objected.  The  people  were  French 
Acadians  and  had  professed  great  apprehensions  of  being  sur- 

Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  LXVII,  1247-1250.  For  interesting 
references  to  these  boundary  maps,  see  Justin  Winsor’s  paper.  The  Carto- 
graphical History  of  the  Northeastern  Boundary  Co7itroversy , printed  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  October,  1887. 


368 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


rendered  by  Great  Britain.  It  would  be  a hardship,  not  to  say 
cruelty,  said  L,ord  Ashburton,  to  separate  this  happy,  contented 
community.^  Mr.  Webster  did  not  argue  the  matter  with  the 
British  representative,  but  sent  to  him  “a  paper  drawn  up  by  the 
Maine  commissioners,  who  pronounce  an  invective  on  the  tyranny 
which  they  allege  England  has  exercised  towards  this  very 
people.” 

Sir  Howard  Douglas,  who  was  governor  of  New  Brunswick 
from  1824  to  1829,  and  therefore  was  very  familiar  with  matters 
pertaining  to  the  boundary  controversy,  came  to  the  assistance  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel  in  his  defense  of  the  Ashburton  treaty,  but  with 
especial  reference  to  the  treatment  British  boundary  affairs  had 
received  at  the  time  Lord  Palmerston  was  in  office.  His  observa- 
tions have  historical  interest.  “Towards  the  end  of  the  year 
1828,”  he  said,  “preparations  were  making  in  Maine  to  construct 
a military  road  from  Mars  Hill  into  the  disputed  territory.  I pro- 
tested against  this  in  December,  1828,  and  again  in  March,  1829, 
and  I announced  my  determination  that  if  it  should  be  attempted, 
I would  not  again  have  recourse  to  law  proceedings  [as  in  the 
case  of  John  Baker],  but,  acting  on  the  verdict  pronounced 
against  Baker  in  the  supreme  court,  I would  interfere,  with  mili- 
tary force,  to  prevent  any  intrusion  into  the  disputed  territory. 
This  effectually  deterred  the  Americans  from  any  similar  attempt 
in  my  time.  Having  reported  all  this  to  his  Majesty’s  govern- 
ment, I was  ordered  home  to  be  consulted  on  the  statements  then 
preparing  for  submission  to  the  King  of  Holland.  I must  here 
say  that  I considered  the  carrying  out  of  these  proceedings  against 
Baker  of  such  vital  importance  that  I was  determined  I would 
not,  under  the  circumstances,  stop  those  proceedings.  I stated 
this  in  the  strongest  terms.  I will  now  confess,  that  even  if  the 
government  had  been  so  weak  as  to  direct  me  to  do  this,  instead 
of  supporting  me  in  the  vigorous  and  firm  manner  they  did,  I 
was  determined  to  disobey  their  order  and  resign  my  post.  Now, 
Sir,  upon  the  spot,  the  very  identical  spot  where  I caused  Baker 

'^House  Executive  Documents^  27th  Congress,  Third  Session,  II,  38. 


THE  TREATY  IN  THE  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT.  369 

to  be  apprehended,  and  thus  firmly  asserted  exclusive  possession, 
jurisdiction  and  sovereignty,  there  now  stands  an  American  fort, 
established  during  the  noble  Lord’s  [Palmerston]  time,  after  a 
series  of  encroachments  on  the  one  hand,  and  concessions  on  the 
other,  which  I shall  quickly  run  through.  Why,  Sir,  this  was 
concession,  compromise,  surrender  and  even  capitulation — it  was 
conceding  all  I had  contended,  it  was  the  surrender  of  everything 
I had  asserted.  The  territory  to  the  south  of  the  St.  John  was 
thus  wholly  usurped  and  taken  military  possession  of.  Fort 
Fairfield  was  permitted  to  be  built  on  the  north  line,  nearly  oppo- 
site to  the  mouth  of  the  British  river  ‘Tobique’  and  the  block- 
house, or  Fort  Jarvis,  on  the  spot  where  Baker  had  been  appre- 
hended on  the  right  bank  of  the  St.  John,  near  the  Fish  river.”  ' 

“If  there  be  anything  in  this  treaty,  in  the  opinion  of  any  hon- 
orable members,  inconsistent  with  the  interests  of  the  country, 
prejudicial  to  the  safety  of  our  North  American  possessions,  or 
derogatory  to  the  honor  of  the  crown,  I do  say,  that  it  is  not  to 
the  charge  of  the  present  government  that  these  evils  should  be 
laid,  but  to  the  charge  of  the  noble  Lord  who  had  permitted  the 
civil  jurisdiction  and  military  occupation  of  the  territory  to  be 
subverted  and  usurped;  and  which  left  nothing  for  his  successor 
to  do,  but  to  compromise  the  question  by  a conventional  line,  or 
to  adopt  the  other  alternative  and  go  to  war.”* 

On  the  following  day,  and  therefore  very  early  in  his  brilliant 
parliamentry  career,  Mr.  Disraeli  continued  the  debate.  A very 
general  opinion  in  England,  he  said,  was  in  favor  of  the  Ashbur- 
ton treaty.  He  believed,  however,  that  the  opinion  was  equally 
general  that  Great  Britain  had  a right  to  the  disputed  territory, 
and  could  afford  to  be  generous  of  that  right.  He  questioned, 

^ John  Baker  was  arrested  at  the  place  here  stated,  but  the  blockhouse  built 
there  was  named  Fort  Kent.  There  were  two  blockhouses  at  Fort  Fairfield. 
One  was  known  as  Fort  Fairfield,  but  Fort  Jarvis  evidently  was  the  name 
given  to  the  second  blockhouse,  and  was  named  for  the  provisional  land 
agent  in  charge  of  the  civil  posse  there  at  the  time  of  the  Aroostook  war. 

"^Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  LXVII,  1273,  1274. 


24 


370 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


nevertheless,  whether  that  right  was  not  of  a very  doubtful 
character,  and  in  support  of  this  position  he  proceeded  to  offer 
evidence  not  introduced  before,  which  he  thought  might  have 
weight  in  other  minds.  “They  had  all  heard  of  a map  with  a 
broad  red  line,  which  map,  marking  out  the  boundary  according 
to  the  original  claim  of  the  British  government,  was  discovered 
apparently  in  the  archives  of  the  foreign  office  in  Paris  subse- 
quent to  the  settlement  of  the  question,  and  had  been  talked  of 
and  written  of  by  many  who  had  never  seen  it.  He,  however, 
perhaps,  was  in  a position  to  speak  of  it  with  more  authority  than 
some  members  of  the  House,  for  he  had  seen  it.  It  was  a map 
eighteen  inches  square,  and  was  drawn  by  d’ Anville.  He  believed 
that  it  was  one  of  the  smallest  maps  that  d’ Anville  had  ever 
drawn.  It  was  not,  by  the  by,  a map  of  the  disputed  territory, 
nor  a map  of  Canada,  but  a map  of  the  whole  of  North  America; 
and,  consequently,  this  broad  red  line — [Hord  John  Russell, 
“strong”].  Well,  this  strong  red  line  would  itself  occupy  no 
slight  part  of  the  disputed  territory.  In  fact  it  blotted  out  no 
inconsiderable  portion  of  the  State  of  Maine,  which  could  occupy 
but  a very  small  space  in  a map  of  North  America,  eighteen 
inches  square.  That  was  the  map  by  d’Anville;  but  there  was 
in  England  another  map,  which  he  supposed  was  the  map  yester- 
day referred  to  by  the  right  honorable  Baronet  at  the  head  of  the 
government,  of  far  greater  dimensions,  and  which  was  also 
marked  with  a strong  red  line,  giving  the  limits  according  to  the 
American  claim.  That  was  the  map  drawn  by  Mitchell,  a map 
which  was  recognized  as  of  authority,  having  been  brought  from 
the  collection  of  his  late  Majesty  King  George  III,  who,  it  was 
well  known,  had  taken  a great  personal  interest  in  the  affairs  of 
Canada  and  of  North  America  generally.  Now,  it  might  be  a 
question  whether  any  argument  at  all  ought  to  be  raised  on  these 
marked  maps.  It  was  not  he  who  raised  it;  yet  so  much  stress 
had  been  laid  upon  these  circumstances,  he  was  bound  to  state 
that  evidence  existed,  which  if  they  were  forced  to  decide  on  such 
a question,  must,  in  his  opinion,  force  them  to  a conviction  that 


THE  treaty  in  the  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT. 


371 


the  map  drawn  by  Mitchell,  was  the  map  which  guided  the 
American  negotiators,  and  none  other.  On  this  point  he  would 
trouble  the  House  with  an  extract,  which  bore  directly  upon  it, 
from  the  private  correspondence  of  Dr.  Franklin.  There  was  a 
letter  from  Dr.  Franklin,  addressed  to  Mr.  Livingston,  after  the 
settlement  of  the  treaty;  he  had  found  it  not  in  the  work^  of  Mr. 
Jared  Sparks,  but  in  a book  published  a quarter  of  a century  ago 
by  Mr.  Temple,  the  grandson  of  Dr.  Franklin,  and  which  con- 
tained all  the  private  and  diplomatic  correspondence  of  Dr. 
Franklin  while  at  Paris.” 

After  reading  the  Franklin  letter  Mr.  Disraeli  continued:  ‘ ‘Now 
Dr.  Franklin  at  the  time  was  extremely  ill;  his  illness  continued 
for  about  two  months,  and  he  had  not  been  present  at  any  of  the 
meetings  of  the  negotiators  at  which  the  boundaries  had  been 
arranged.  This  circumstance  he  repeatedly  referred  to  in  his 
correspondence,  and  in  one  of  his  letters  he  congratulated  the 
Congress  upon  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Adams  (by  whom  the  bounda- 
ries had  been  settled),  who  ‘was  so  well  acquainted  with  the  coun- 
try.’ He  might  also  observe,  that  even  if  this  French  map  had 
been  addressed  to  Dr.  Franklin,  that  fact,  under  the  circum- 
stances, proved  nothing,  for  Dr.  Franklin  was  only  one  of  four 
negotiators,  the  others  being  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Laurens,  and  Mr. 
Jay.  Above  all,  the  existence  of  such  a map  did  not  appear  in 
the  journals  of  the  commissioners,  or  in  the  report  made  by  them 
to  Congress.” * 

In  the  course  of  his  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  debate  Lord 
Palmerston  referred  to  Lord  Ashburton  as  not  only  a British  sub- 
ject, but  an  American  citizen,  and  so  was  unfitted  by  this  double 
relationship  to  have  the  charge  of  a settlement  in  which  large 
British  interests  were  at  stake.  On  the  evening  of  March  23rd, 
after  therefore  the  debate  had  closed.  Lord  Palmerston  asked  the 
attention  of  the  House  for  a correction  of  this  remark.  He  had 

^A  part  of  this  letter  by  Franklin  will  be  found  on  page  54  of  this  volume. 

^Hansard' s Parliamentary  Debates,  LXVII,  1305,  1306. 


372 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


been  informed  that  he  was  mistaken  and  that  there  was  no  foun- 
dation for  the  supposition.* 

Ratifications  of  the  treaty  by  both  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  were  exchanged  on  October  13,  1842,  and,  on  November 
10th  following,  the  treaty  was  formally  proclaimed. 

^I/ord  Ashburton’s  wife  was  a daughter  of  William  Bingham  of  Philadel- 
phia, whose  name  in  Maine  has  long  been  perpetuated  in  all  references  to 
the  Bingham  Purchase.  In  a letter  to  Mr.  Webster,  referring  to  the  depart- 
ure of  her  husband  (whom  on  account  of  her  health  she  was  not  to  accom- 
pany to  the  land  of  her  birth),  Lady  Ashburton  wrote:  "These  honors  were 
thrust  upon  him  as  the  person  most  zealous  in  the  cause  of  America,  and 
most  sanguine  as  to  the  possibility  of  settling  the  long  pending  differences 
between  the  two  countries.  God  grant  that  his  best  hopes  may  be  realized, 
and  that  I may  see  him  return  with  a treaty  of  peace  in  his  pocket.  ’ ’ The 
Letters  of  Daniel  Webster.  Van  Tyne,  1902,  254. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

Maine  Right  in  Her  Contention. 


HE  prominence  of  Maine  in  the  boundary  controversy  was 
natural.  It  was  her  territory  that  Great  Britain  sought 
to  obtain.  Even  while  Maine  was  a part  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  known  as  the  District  of  Maine,  her  people 
were  active  in  claiming  the  line  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  opposi- 
tion to  British  claims.  But  when  Maine  became  a state,  though 
other  states,  and  especially  those  remote,  might  not  care  where 
the  line  was  drawn,  Maine  did  care,  and  with  characteristic  energy 
and  tenacity  she  insisted  that  according  to  the  language  of  the 
treaty  the  whole  of  the  disputed  territory  was  hers  and  should 
not  be  taken  from  her  without  proper  equivalents.  How  ener- 
getically and  tenaciously  she  maintained  this  position  is  abun- 
dantly illustrated  in  the  preceding  pages. 

But  was  Maine  right  in  this  contention  ? That  she  was  will 
appear  from  the  established  fact  that  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
boundary  controversy,  representatives  of  the  British  government 
in  New  Brunswick  found  it  difficult  in  their  private  correspond- 
ence, now  accessible,  to  take  any  other  view  of  the  boundary  line 
than  is  found  in  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  was 
insisted  upon  by  the  people  of  Maine.  The  soundness  of  this 
early  New  Brunswick  opinion  was  made  very  clearly  to  appear 
soon  after  the  final  settlement  of  the  controversy  in  1842,  when 
the  provinces  of  Canada  and  New  Brunswick  found  it  needful  to 
settle  a controversy  of  their  own  as  the  successors  of  the  ancient 
provinces  of  Quebec  and  Nova  Scotia.  In  this  controversy,  the 
two  British  provinces  advocated  claims  that  were  urged  respect- 
ively by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  in  their  contention 
with  reference  to  the  boundary,  Canada  claiming  a line  drawn 
from  Mars  Hill,  and  New  Brunswick  claiming  substantially  the 


374 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


line  for  which  Maine  contended.  In  fact,  so  divergent  were 
these  claims,  and  so  utterly  hopeless  was  the  prospect  of  any 
agreement,  that  at  length  the  British  government  found  it  neces- 
sary to  refer  the  whole  matter  to  a commission.  This  commis- 
sion, appointed  by  the  crown  in  1846,  consisted  of  two  engineer 
ofi&cers  of  the  British  army  and  the  attorney  general  of  Nova 
Scotia,  who  were  directed  to  report  on  the  question  whether  any 
line  between  the  two  provinces  could  be  drawn  that  would  be 
acceptable  to  the  parties  at  issue.  If  no  such  line  could  be  found 
that  would  satisfy  “the  strict  legal  claims”  of  both,  the  commis- 
sioners were  to  state  in  their  report  “how  a line  could  be  drawn 
which  would  combine  the  greatest  amount  of  practical  convenience 
to  both  provinces  with  the  least  amount  of  practical  inconven- 
ience to  either;  adverting  at  the  same  time  to  such  interests  (if 
there  be  any)  as  the  empire  at  large  may  have  in  the  adjustment 
of  this  question.”  ^ 

July  20,  1848,  the  commissioners  reported  that  a line  which 
would  satisfy  the  strict  legal  claims  of  the  two  provinces  could  be 
drawn;  but  they  also  reported  (l)  that  westward  of  the  due  north 
line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  there  lay  a tract  of  country, 
between  the  “highlands”  and  the  boundary  of  the  United  States, 
as  determined  by  the  Ashburton-Webster  treaty,  “which  in  1763 
formed  part  of  the  ancient  territory  of  Sagadahock,”  and  “which, 
according  to  the  strict  legal  rights  of  the  provinces,  belongs  to 
neither;”  (2)  that  the  line  of  boundary  demanded  by  the  strict 
legal  rights  of  the  provinces  was  at  variance  with  the  actual 
possession  of  both,  and  with  their  mutual  advantage  and  conven- 
ience; (3)  that  each  province  had  exercised  jurisdiction  and 
extended  its  settlements  for  a considerable  distance;  (4)  that,  for 
reasons  stated,  territory  strictly  belonging  to  New  Brunswick 
should  be  confirmed  to  Canada;  (5)  that  a considerable  portion 
of  the  territory  west  of  the  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the 
St.  Croix,  and  belonging  to  neither  province,  might  be  benefi- 
cially assigned  to  New  Brunswick,  since  it  was  chiefly  settled 

^J.  B.  Moore,  International  Arbitrations,  I,  157,  158. 


MAIKE  RIGHT  IN  HER  CONTENTION. 


375 


under  the  authority  of  that  province,  was  connected  with  it  by 
natural  communications,  and  had  actually  been  in  its  possession 
and  under  its  jurisdiction.  Accordingly,  instructed  to  consider 
matters  of  convenience,  the  commissioners  recommended  that  New 
Brunswick  should  be  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  boundary  of 
the  United  States,  as  traced  by  the  commissioners  of  boundary 
under  the  treaty  of  Washington,  dated  August,  1842,  on  a due 
north  line  from  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix.  But  the  territory 
north  of  the  St.  John,  and  south  of  the  highlands,  once  belonging 
to  the  ancient  territory  of  Sagadahock,  and  therefore  once  to 
Maine,  they  recommended,  not  having  formerly  belonged  to  either 
party,  should  be  divided  between  them.  New  Brunswick  receiving 
2,300  square  miles  and  Canada  2,100. 

The  executive  council  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick 
advised  the  acceptance  of  the  recommendation  of  the  commission- 
ers as  “an  equitable  settlement  of  the  question  so  long  pending;” 
but  the  executive  council  of  Canada  was  “unable  to  recognize” 
either  the  “justice  or  equity”  of  the  commissioners’  recommenda- 
tion. The  British  government  then  suggested  a settlement  by 
arbitration,  the  arbitrators  to  meet  in  London.  Canada  was  to 
appoint  an  arbitrator  and  New  Brunswick  one,  while  a third  was 
to  be  chosen  by  the  two  provincial  members.  As  organized,  the 
arbitration  board  consisted  of  the  following  members,  Dr.  Travers 
Twiss  (New  Brunswick),  Thomas  Falconer  (Canada),  and  Judge 
Stephen  Lushington  of  the  Admiral  Court,  chosen  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  Canada  and  New  Brunswick.  Their  award  (Mr. 
Falconer  dissenting)  was  announced  April  17,  1851.  The  line 
which  it  established  was  substantially  that  recommended  by  the 
royal  commissioners  in  1848,  except  it  gave  the  fiefs  of  Temis- 
couata  and  Madawaska  to  Canada  instead  of  to  New  Brunswick.^ 

In  other  words.  New  Brunswick,  in  her  controversy  with  Can- 
ada at  this  time,  claimed  as  her  northern  boundary  the  “high- 
lands” south  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  and  as  her  western  bound- 
ary the  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  as 

^ J.  B.  Moore,  International  Arbitratio7is,  I,  160,  161. 


376 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


described  in  the  treaty  of  1783  and  established  by  the  St.  Croix 
commission  in  1798.  But  this  was  Maine’s  contention  as  to  the 
boundary  in  the  international  controversy.  In  her  contention 
with  Canada  New  Brunswick’s  claim  was  adjudged  to  be  right, 
and  the  claim  was  confirmed  to  her  in  1851.  That  judgment, 
however,  was  at  the  same  time  an  admission  and  a declaration 
that  Maine’s  contention  in  the  international  boundary  controversy 
was  right.  The  people  of  New  Brunswick,  however,  seem  to 
have  been  slow  in  recognizing  the  real  significance  of  this  deci- 
sion in  her  favor.  When  the  subject  has  come  up  among  them 
in  the  lapse  of  years  since  the  international  settlement,  as  it  fre- 
quently has,  even  most  prominent  men  have  vigorously  asserted 
that  New  Brunswick  was  robbed  of  her  rights  by  the  Ashburton- 
Webster  treaty.  As  late  as  the  close  of  the  last  century  it  was 
stated  by  a son  of  New  Brunswick  that  this  view  is  well-nigh  gen- 
eral in  the  province.  “As  a thorough  New  Brunswicker,”  he 
writes,  “I  inherited  the  old  prejudice,  assuming  as  a matter  of 
course  that  we  must  be  right  and  the  other  party  wrong,  and 
I have  abused  L,ord  Ashburton  as  roundly  as  anybody  for  what  I 
supposed  was  his  betrayal  of  the  interests  of  the  province.  But 
when  I began  to  examine  for  myself  the  original  documents,  and 
maps,  I found  difficulty  in  reconciling  them  with  this  view,  a 
difficulty  which  increased  with  further  examination,  until  finally 
I was  forced  to  the  belief  that  in  this  dispute  Maine  was  techni- 
cally right  and  New  Brunswick  wrong,  and  that  the  Ashburton 
treaty  gave  us  territory  to  which  we  were  not  entitled  under 
the  treaty  of  1783.”  ^ 

As  a summary  of  the  facts  as  he  found  them,  the  writer  of  the 
above  citation  makes  the  following  statement: 

“l.  The  original  charters,  documents,  maps,  etc.,  when 
calmly  examined  by  themselves  (not  as  quoted  and  commented 

* W.  F.  Ganong,  Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick^  Proceed- 
ings ol  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  1901,  348,  349.  As  other  New  Brunswick 
historical  writers  who  have  examined  the  original  sources  of  boundary  infor- 
mation with  like  results.  Professor  Ganong  mentions  Mr.  James  Hannay  and 
Dr.  W.  O.  Raymond, 


MAINE  RIGHT  IN  HER  CONTENTION. 


377 


upon  by  the  partisan  advocates  of  either  side)  seem  to  me  to 
point  irresistably  to  this  conclusion. 

“2.  The  principal  men  of  New  Brunswick,  those  whose  duty 
made  them  examine  minutely  into  all  the  documents  of  the  case 
(namely,  Governor  Carleton,  Ward  Chipman  and  Edward  Wins- 
low), all  admitted  without  the  least  question  the  full  American 
claim;  they  realized  fully  the  disadvantages  of  the  boundary  thus 
allowed,  but  hoped  to  remove  them  by  some  special  arrangement. 

“3.  The  New  Brunswick  Legislature,  in  1814,  admitted  the 
American  claim,  and  petitioned  the  British  government  to  have 
an  alteration  made  in  the  line  at  the  pending  treaty  of  peace;  the 
British  government  in  the  same  year  admitted  the  American 
claim,  at  least  in  part,  in  asking  for  a cession  of  territory,  to  pre- 
serve the  communication  from  Quebec  to  New  Brunswick. 

“4.  The  British  claim  to  Mars  Hill  Highlands  as  a boundary 
did  not  make  its  appearance  until  after  1814;  it  was  tentatively 
advanced  in  1815,  had  not  been  elaborated  in  1817,  and  made  its 
first  formal  appearance  in  the  controversy  in  1821  in  the  argu- 
ment of  Ward  Chipman,  who,  in  one  of  his  private  letters,  speaks 
of  it  in  such  a way  as  to  imply  that  it  was  being  formulated  by 
himself.  Why,  if  this  was  the  true  boundary,  did  not  Great 
Britain  advance  it  earlier  in  the  controversy  ? 

“5.  As  soon  as  the  treaty  of  1842  was  signed,  an  active  dis- 
pute arose  between  New  Brunswick  and  Quebec  as  to  their  inter- 
provincial boundary,  and  New  Brunswick  claimed  as  her  north- 
ern boundary  the  highlands  south  of  the  St.  Lawrence;  but  since, 
by  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  western  boundary  of  New  Brunswick 
was  the  eastern  boundary  of  Maine,  this  was  granting  the  Maine 
claim.  Quebec,  on  the  other  hand,  claimed  as  a boundary  the 
Mars  Hill  Highlands;  if  Great  Britain’s  claim  to  an  international 
boundary  on  those  highlands  was  correct,  then  Quebec’s  claim 
was  correct,  but  Great  Britain  never  admitted  it.  During  the  con- 
troversy the  agents  of  both  sides  more  or  less  distinctly  admitted 
the  justice  of  the  American  claim.  The  provinces  could  not 
agree,  and  a commission  was  appointed  by  the  British  govern- 


378 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ment  consisting-  of  t-wo  Englishmen  and  a Nova  Scotian,  and  in 
1848  they  rendered  their  decisions,  in  which  they  asserted  that 
the  disputed  territory  belonged  legally  to  neither  party,  but  was 
a part  of  the  ancient  province  of  Sagadahock  [and  therefore  of 
Maine]  (Blue  Book  of  1851,  93),  and  they  proposed  to  divide  it 
between  the  two  provinces.  The  same  opinion  was  reasserted  by 
Travers  Twiss,  an  eminent  Englishman,  on  the  final  arbitration 
which  settled  this  boundary  in  1851  (Blue  Book,  76),  when  he 
said  that  the  country  south  of  the  St.  Lawrence  watershed,  and 
west  of  the  north  line  belonged  to  neither  province,  but  to  the 
British  crown.  This  territory  was  divided  between  Quebec  and 
New  Brunswick.”^ 

The  writer  of  this  summary  adds:  “The  legal  claim  of  Maine, 
therefore,  seems  to  me  justified  by  the  documents  in  the  case,  by 
the  opinion  of  contemporary  New  Brunswick  and  British  author- 
ities, and  by  the  decisions  of  eminent  Englishmen  since.”  But 
having  thus  conceded  that  legally  Maine  was  right  in  her  conten- 
tion, Professor  Ganong  states  that  he  cannot  justify  the  conduct 
of  Maine  “in  endeavoring  to  force  these  extreme  rights;”  and  he 
continues:  “Her  right  to  the  territory  in  dispute  was  not  due  to 
her  discovery,  exploitation  or  settlement  of  it;  it  was  purely 
accidental.  Moreover,  the  territory  was  of  comparatively  slight 
value  to  her;  she  had  not  a settler  upon  it  nor  a road  to  it  for 
half  a century  after  the  treaty  was  signed.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
was  settled  in  good  faith  by  British  subjects,  and  was  not  simply 
valuable,  it  was  invaluable  to  Great  Britain.  That  under  these 
circumstances,  Maine  insisted  upon  the  uttermost  letter  of  her 
rights,  refusing  all  accommodation  until  any  other  settlement  was 
hopeless,  is  by  no  means  to  her  credit.  If  Great  Britain  appears 
to  disadvantage  in  employing  diplomacy  to  save  what  she  legally 
had  lost,  in  another  way  Maine  appears  to  at  least  equal  disad- 
vantage in  her  Shylockian  even  though  legal  policy.”  “ 

^W.  F.  Ganong,  Evolutio7i  of  the  Boundaries  of  New  Brunswick,  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  1901,  350,  351.  J.  B.  Moore,  Interna- 
tional Arbitrations,  I,  157-161. 

"^Evolution  of  the  Boundaries  of  Neiu  Brunswick,  353. 


MAINE  RIGHT  IN  HER  CONTENTION. 


379 


It  is  not  easy  to  differ  with  one  who  has  so  frankly  conceded 
that  Maine  was  legally  right  in  her  contention  with  reference  to 
the  treaty  line  of  1783.  But  in  the  last  words  of  the  above  cita- 
tion there  is  a serious  reflection  upon  the  attitude  of  Maine  in  the 
boundary  controversy,  and  one  doubtless  which  gives  expression 
to  a prevalent  opinion  in  New  Brunswick  even  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  conspicuous  for  their  freedom  from  partisan  preju- 
dice. The  character  of  Shylock,  as  it  is  manifested  so  clearly  in 
Shakespeare’s  Merchant  of  Venice,  is  that  of  a cold,  selfish,  heart- 
less, grasping  Jew.  He  is  the  depository  of  the  calculating,  unre- 
lenting vengeance  of  all  his  race — a good  hater,  stung  even  to 
madness  by  repeated  undeserved  provocations,  and  laboring  by 
one  desperate  act  of  lawful  revenge  to  throw  off  the  load  of  oblo- 
quy and  oppression  heaped  upon  him  and  all  his  race.  His  reli- 
gion, his  avarice,  his  affection,  all  concur  to  stimulate  his  hatred 
of  the  oppressor.  The  pound  of  flesh,  which  is  his  by  legal  right, 
he  will  have;  and  the  only  reason  he  will  give  for  demanding  it 
is  “if  it  wull  feed  nothing  else,  it  will  feed  my  revenge.”  It  is 
the  attitude  of  such  a man  that  is  presented  as  characterizing 
Maine’s  attitude  in  the  controversy  which  the  northeastern^ 
boundary  questions  awakened. 

But  is  this  a just  characterization?  It  is  at  once  granted  that 
the  territory  covered  by  Maine’s  claim  in  the  controversy  did  not 
come  to  her  b}^  the  right  of  discovery,  exploitation  or  settlement. 
Nevertheless,  Maine  had  a deep,  abiding  interest  in  that  territory, 
antedating  even  the  Revolution ar3^  period.  Her  first  settlers 
were  there  shortly  after  the  period  of  discovery  and  exploration. 
The  descendants  of  those  first  settlers,  and  those  coming  later, 
formed  more  than  a third  of  Pepperell’s  army  at  the  capture  of 
Louisburg  in  1745,  having  verj^  decided  opinions  with  reference 
to  the  presence  of  the  French  in  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia.'  If 
there  was  any  one  thing  that  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  the 
men  of  Maine  throughout  the  colonial  period  it  was  that  Great 
Britain  (of  which  she  was  a part),  and  not  France,  was  to  exercise 

S.  Burrage,  Maine  at  Louisburg  in  1745. 


380 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


dominion  on  this  western  continent.  A little  later,  in  the  Revo- 
lutionary struggle  as  we  have  already  seen,  it  was  the  one  great 
hope  of  Maine  that  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  would  form  a part  of 
the  new  nation.  When,  therefore,  the  war  closed,  leaving  British 
possessions  on  the  northward  and  eastward  of  her  territory,  now 
the  State  of  Maine  but  then  a part  of  Massachusetts,  the  bound- 
ary line  was  not  a matter  of  slight  importance  on  this  side  of  the 
border.  Though  Maine  had  not  a single  settler  within  the  limits 
of  the  disputed  territory  for  many  years  after  the  treaty  of  1783, 
she  understood  clearly  the  value  and  importance  of  that  territory, 
extending  northward  almost  to  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  which 
I treaty  rights  had  secured  to  her.  Her  strenuous  maintenance  of 
I the  rightfulness  of  her  claim  is  a most  forceful  witness  to  this  fact. 
1 The  statement  that  there  were  British  subjects  in  the  territory 
! claimed  by  Maine,  and  that  on  this  account  also  Great  Britain 
\ had  rights  which  should  have  been  recognized  by  Maine,  requires 
* little  attention.  These  British  subjects  were  French  settlers 
largely  if  not  wholly.  They  were  Acadians,  who,  having  been 
sent  into  exile,  had  found  their  way  back  to  places  with  which 
they  were  acquainted  in  their  earlier  communications  with  Que- 
bec. In  the  very  beginning  of  the  boundary  controversy,  long 
before  Maine  became  a state,  it  was  conceded  by  the  British  that 
these  settlers  were  on  American  soil.  In  1799,  Edward  Winslow, 
a New  Brunswick  Loyalist,  secretary  of  the  St.  Croix  commission, 
referring  in  a letter  to  the  award  of  that  commission,  wrote;  “As 
it  is  we  lose  not  a single  British  settlement.  A few  miserable 
Frenchmen  at  Madawaska,  on  the  route  to  Canada,  fall  within 
their  [Maine]  territory.”  Indeed,  up  to  the  time  of  the  treaty 
of  Ghent,  in  1814,  the  British  admitted  that  these  French  settlers 
were  living  on  American  soil,  and  held  it  to  be  of  no  importance 
that  they  were  there. 

But  Maine’s  claim,  it  is  also  added,  covered  territory  that  was 
“invaluable  to  Great  Britain,”  and  so,  though  Maine  had  a legal 
right  to  the  disputed  territory,  other  rights  should  have  been  rec- 
ognized by  the  State  of  Maine.  But  the  territory  was  deemed 


MAINE  RIGHT  IN  HER  CONTENTION. 


381 


important  also  to  the  State  of  Maine.  George  Evans,  in  a speech 
in  the  national  House  of  Representatives  February  7 and  8,  1838, 
asserted  its  importance.  “ We  have  seen,”  he  said,  “with  what 
tenacity  Great  Britain  clings  to  the  object  of  obtaining  a ‘small 
portion  of  waste  territory,’  only  as  a means  of  communication 
between  the  provinces — doubtless  a measure  to  her  of  great 
importance  and  strength,  and  just  in  the  same  proportion,  a 
measure  to  us,  if  yielded  to,  of  insecurity  and  weakness.”  ^ This 
was  a view  which  had  again  and  again  found  expression  by  the 
people  of  Maine.  In  it  there  was  not  even  the  remotest  hint  that 
Maine  was  playing  the  part  of  Shylock.  If  Great  Britain  desired 
to  secure  better  communications  between  Canada  and  the  mari- 
time provinces,  why  should  not  Maine  receive  in  return  Grand 
Manan  and  Campo  Bello?  Such  exchanges  were  suggested  dur- 
ing the  controversy — territory  for  territory — and  it  was  not  Maine 
that  stood  in  the  way  of  their  acceptance.  When  such  an 
exchange  was  brought  forward  in  the  Ashburton-Webster  nego- 
tiations, Lord  Ashburton  asserted  that  he  had  no  authority  for 
yielding  a single  foot  of  British  territory,  and  declined  to  listen 
to  the  suggestion. 

As  has  already  appeared  in  these  pages,  Maine  was  ready 'to 
yield  what  she  regarded  as  hers  by  right,  notably  in  the  reference 
of  the  boundary  question  to  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  and  also 
at  the  time  of  the  Ashburton-Webster  negotiations.  She  could 
yield  territory  for  equivalents,  but  even  the  national  government 
could  not  take  it  from  her  without  her  consent.  Unquestionably 
in  the  negotiations  with  reference  to  the  islands  of  Passamaquoddy 
Bay,  she  would  have  been  glad  if  an  arrangement  could  have  been 
made  for  an  exchange  of  territory  wanted  by  New  Brunswick 
and  Canada  in  order  to  improve  their  communications,  if,  by  the 
exchange,  she  could  have  secured  Grand  Manan  and  Campo  Bello, 
which  naturally  belong  to  Maine.  Even  in  the  final  settlement, 
when  Maine  bowed  to  the  larger  interests  of  the  national  govern- 

'^Speech  upon  the  Subject  of  the  Northeastern  Boundary,  Washington, 
1838,  34. 


382 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ment  and  accepted  the  loss  of  territory,  it  was  on  the  promise  of 
an  indemnity,  not  that  she  cared  for  the  money  offered  by  the 
national  government,  but  as  a matter  of  principle  consistently 
maintained  throughout  the  controversy.  As  Professor  Ganong, 
referring  to  the  Ashburton-Webster  settlement,  says:  “Maine 
was  in  part  compensated  by  a large  sum  paid  her  by  the  United 
States;  though  it  must  by  no  means  be  inferred  that  this  prompted 
her  decision,  for  her  stand  in  the  matter  had  unquestionably 
been  taken  upon  principle,  and  her  consent  was  given  for  the 
good  of  the  Union.”  ^ 

This  is  true.  At  no  period  of  the  long  controversy  did  Maine 
act  a Shylockian  part.  Neither  selfishness  nor  avarice  character- 
ized her  actions.  Her  course  was  consistent  and  patriotic  from 
the  beginning  of  the  controversy  to  its  close;  and  it  was  because 
of  her  firm  and  intelligent  action  that  the  extreme  British  claim 
was  not  pushed  to  a successful  termination.^ 

^ Evohitioyi  of  the  Botmdaries  of  New  Brunswick,  346,  347. 

■ This  matter  is  more  fully  considered  by  the  writer  of  this  volume  in  a 
paper  entitled.  The  Attitude  of  Maine  hi  the  Northeastern  Boundary  Con- 
troversy, read  before  the  Maine  Historical  Society,  January  2,  1903,  and 
printed  in  Vol.  I,  Third  Series  of  the  Society’s  Collections,  353-368. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  Final  Settlement. 


HE  decision  of  Commissioners  Barclay  and  Holmes,  ren- 
dered November  24,  1817,  as  joint  commissioners  with 
reference  to  the  national  ownership  of  the  islands  in 
Passamaquoddy  Bay,  did  not  define  the  course  of  the 
international  boundary  line  among  the  islands  whose  ownership 
they  declared.  Accordingly  irritating  differences  of  opinion 
early  arose  among  interested  parties  connected  with  one  or  the 
other  of  the  two  nationalities,  and  these  differences  naturally 
became  increasingly  irritating,  especially  with  the  increase  of 
population  in  the  vicinity  of  the  boundary.  In  order  to  provide 
such  a definition,  therefore,  and  so  to  bring  the  northeastern 
boundary  controversy  to  a final  settlement,  the  second  article  of 
the  convention  of  July  22,  1892,  arranged  by  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  reads  in  part  as  follows:  “The  high  contract- 
ing parties  agree  that  the  governments  of  the  United  States  and 
of  her  Britannic  Majesty  in  behalf  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
shall,  with  as  little  delay  as  possible,  appoint  two  commissioners, 
one  to  be  named  by  each  party,  to  determine  upon  a method  of 
most  accurately  marking  the  boundary  line  between  the  two 
countries  in  the  waters  of  Passamaquoddy  Bay  in  front  of  and 
adjacent  to  Eastport,  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  to  place  buoys, 
or  fix  such  other  boundary  marks,  as  they  may  determine  to  be 
necessary.”  In  order  to  carry  this  authorization  into  effect 
Thomas  C.  Mendenhall  was  appointed  commissioner  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  and  W.  F.  King,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 

The  commissioners,  in  entering  upon  the  task  assigned  to  them 
in  connection  with  this  appointment,  agreed  that  a liberal  inter- 
pretation of  their  duties  would  require,  or  at  least  permit,  the 
marking  of  the  whole  extent  of  the  undefined  boundary  from 


384 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  the  open  sea  beyond  West 
Quoddy  Head,  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  Liberty  Point  on  Campo 
Bello  Island  in  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick.  As  such  action 
would  prevent  all  further  controversy  as  to  the  boundary,  the 
commissioners  established  the  necessary  ranges  for  the  delimita- 
tion of  the  line,  finding  themselves,  as  the  work  proceeded,  in 
agreement  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  of  the  commissioners  under  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of 
Ghent  in  1814,  except  as  to  two  parts  of  the  boundary  line. 
First,  they  were  unable  to  agree  “as  to  that  part  of  the  boundary 
line  which  passes  by  and  is  adjacent  to  Pope’s  Folly  Island”; 
and  second,  “They  were  also  unable  to  agree  as  to  the  definition 
or  location  of  that  part  of  the  line  which  passes  by  and  is  in  the 
vicinity  of  Lubec  Channel  Lighthouse.”  ^ 

The  commissioners,  finding  themselves  thus  in  disagreement  at 
certain  parts  of  the  line,  submitted  individually  in  December, 
1894,  certain  propositions,  neither  being  willing  to  accept  those 
of  the  other.  Later,  the  secretary  of  state  in  Washington,  Mr. 
Gresham,  was  consulted  by  Mr.  Mendenhall,  who  explained  to 
the  secretary  the  points  at  issue  between  the  two  commissioners. 
In  accordance  with  Mr.  Gresham’s  advice,  Mr.  Mendenhall 
drafted  a joint  report  showing  agreement  by  the  commissioners 
upon  points  not  in  controversy,  while  separate  reports,  it  was 
stated,  were  to  be  presented  upon  contested  issues.  This  draft 
was  not  satisfactory  to  Mr.  King,  who,  August  20,  1895,  object- 
ing to  the  impression  given  by  Mr.  Mendenhall  that  the  commis- 
sioners differed  only  with  regard  to  two  portions  of  the  line, 
namely  at  Pope’s  Folly  Island  and  at  the  Middle  Ground,  sub- 
mitted a draft  of  his  own  which,  after  a reference  to  differences 
that  had  arisen  between  the  commissioners  as  work  under  their 

^Appendix  to  Evidence  and  Argument  in  Behalf  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  2.  This  pamphlet,  published  by  the  government,  contains  the 
argument  and  documents  presented  in  accordance  with' article  one  of  the 
treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  April  11,  1908  (relating 
to  the  international  boundary  line  through  Passamaquoddy  Bay),  by  Chandler 
P.  Anderson,  Harry  Mighels  Verrill,  Frederick  Hale  and  Charles  D.  Booth. 


THE  FINAE  SETTLEMENT. 


385 


tentative  agreement  progressed,  closed  with  these  words:  “We 
have  therefore  to  report  that  we  are  not  prepared  to  join  in  any 
recommendation  as  to  any  portion  of  the  line.  Separate  reports 
will  be  submitted  by  us  upon  the  points  of  difference.”  ^ 

Certainly,  this  was  an  unpromising  situation,  and  nothing  fur- 
ther was  done  with  reference  to  any  settlement  of  the  boundary 
line  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay  until  near  the  close  of  the  Roosevelt 
administration,  when,  April  11,  1908,  Mr.  Root,  secretary  of 
state,  concluded  a treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  by  which,  in  article  one,  it  was  agreed  that  the  two 
countries  should  again  appoint  commissioners  for  the  purpose  of 
more  accurately  defining  and  marking  the  international  boundary 
line  between  the  United  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in 
the  waters  of  Passamaquoddy  Bay  from  the  mouth  of  the  St. 
Croix  River  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  After  describing  the  location 
of  certain  portions  of  the  line,  concerning  which  Commissioners 
Mendenhall  and  King  had  agreed,  the  treaty,  with  respect  to  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  line,  declared,  that  “each  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  shall  present  to  the  other,  within  six  months 
after  the  ratification  of  this  treaty,  a full  printed  statement  of  the 
evidence,  with  certified  copies  of  original  documents  referred  to 
therein  which  are  in  its  possession,  and  the  arguments  upon 
which  it  bases  its  contention,  with  a view  to  arriving  at  an  adjust- 
ment of  the  location  of  this  portion  of  the  line  in  accordance 
with  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  provisions  relating  thereto 
of  the  treaties  of  1783  and  1814  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  and  the  award  of  the  commissioners  appointed  in 
that  behalf  under  the  treaty  of  1814;  it  being  understood  that  any 
action  by  either  or  both  governments,  or  their  representatives 
authorized  in  that  behalf,  or  by  the  local  governments  on  either 
side  of  the  line,  whether  prior  or  subsequent  to  such  treaties  and 
award,  tending  to  aid  in  the  interpretation  thereof,  shall  be  taken 
into  consideration  in  determining  their  true  intent  and  mean- 

^Appendix  to  Evidence  and  Argument  in  Behalf  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  11. 


25 


386 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


ing.”^  It  was  further  agreed  that  in  case  an  agreement  was 
reached,  the  commissioners  should  lay  down  and  mark  this  part 
of  the  boundary  as  provided  in  the  treaty;  but  in  the  event  of  a 
failure  to  agree  within  a set  period,  the  location  of  that  portion 
of  the  line  should  be  determined  by  arbitration.  The  preparation 
of  the  full  printed  statement  of  the  case  for  the  United  States, 
called  for  by  the  treaty  of  1908,  was  assigned  to  Chandler  P. 
Anderson,  counselor  of  the  state  department  in  Washington,  and 
Messrs.  Verrill,  Hale  and  Booth,  of  Portland,  Maine.  This  state- 
ment was  duly  exchanged  for  that  prepared  by  Great  Britain  and 
presented  through  the  British  ambassador  in  Washington.  The 
attorneys  for  the  United  States  contended  that  it  was  not  the 
intent  of  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  treaty  of  1814  to 
award  to  Great  Britain  Pope’s  Folly  Island,  known  in  earlier 
days  as  Mark  Island  and  Green  or  Little  Green  Island;  but  “to 
lay  the  basis  for  a line  of  division  which  would  give  this  island 
to  the  United  States;  and  that  even  if  the  commissioners  did  not 
intend  to  define  such  a line,  this  island  should  now  be  accorded 
to  the  United  States  in  accordance  with  the  principles  which 
controlled  these  commissioners  in  their  decision  as  to  the  other 
islands,”*  which  would  make  the  boundary  line  at  this  point 
follow  the  channel  east  of  Pope’s  Folly  Island.  As  to  the  portion 
of  the  line  south  of  Lubec  Narrows,  it  was  the  contention  of  the 
attorneys  of  the  United  States  that  “the  main  channel,  from  prior 
to  the  treaty  of  1783  up  to  the  creation  of  the  present  dredged 
channel  in  1878,  and  subsequent  years,  was  east  of  the  Upper 
Middle  Ground,  so  called,  and  followed  the  shore  of  Campo  Bello 
Island  around  the  southerly  side  of  Cranberry  Point,  and  ran 

^Copy  of  the  treaty  as  published  in  1910  at  the  government  printing  office, 
3,  4. 

^ These  principles  were  such  as  to  lead  them  to  confirm  to  each  government 
such  islands  as  had  been  taken  up  and  actually  occupied  by  the  citizens  of 
the  respective  governments.  Apperidix  to  Evidence  and  Argument  in  Be- 
half of  the  United  States  of  America,  23-26. 


THE  FINAL  SETTLEMENT. 


387 


close  by  Duck  Islands;  and  that  accordingly  the  boundary  should 
follow  the  course  of  this  old  channel.”  ^ 

In  the  evidence  and  argument  offered  in  behalf  of  Great  Britain 
attention  was  principally  given  to  the  presentation  of  matters 
having  reference  to  the  nationality  of  Pope’s  Folly  Island, 
although  the  question  was  considered  whether  the  most  conven- 
ient course  for  the  international  line,  north  of  Lubec  Narrows, 
should  not  be  fixed  irrespective  of  the  nationality  of  that  island, 
“having  regard  to  the  relative  width  of  the  alternate  channels 
presented,  or  to  the  comparative  depth  and  availability  for  navi- 
gation of  such  channels.”^  South  of  the  Lubec  Narrows,  the 
international  line,  the  British  attorneys  contended,  should  follow 
the  dredged  channel  west  of  the  Upper  Middle  Ground.® 

With  this  exchange  of  arguments,  documents,  etc.,  boundary 
matters  were  allowed  to  rest  for  awhile.  No  commissioners  were 
appointed  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1908. 
During  the  Taft  administration,  there  was  a re-awakening  with 
reference  to  boundary  considerations,  and  on  May  21,  1910,  the 
president  of  the  United  States,  by  a proclamation,  announced  the 
conclusion  of  a treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  “fixing  and  defining  the  location  of  the  international 
boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay  and  to  the  middle  of  Grand  Manan 
Channel,  and  removing  all  causes  of  dispute  in  connection  there- 
with.” As  plenipotentiaries  to  that  end  President  Taft  appointed 
Philander  C.  Knox,  secretary  of  state  of  the  United  States,  for 
the  United  States,  and  James  Bryce,  his  Britannic  Majesty’s 
ambassador  and  plenipotentiary  at  Washington,  was  made  the 
representative  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  the  desire  of  both  gov- 
ernments that  an  adjustment  of  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  two  should  be  reached  without  a resort  to  arbitration,  as  was 
provided  in  the  treaty  of  1908,  in  case  of  a disagreement  on  the 

'^Evidence  and  Argumeyit  in  Behalf  of  the  United  States  of  America,  6,  7. 

^Typewritten  copy  of  the  Evidence  a7id  Argument  in  Behalf  of  Great 
Britain,  Maine  Historical  Society  Library,  margin  page  3. 

®Ib.,  Maine  Historical  Society  Library,  33. 


388 


MAINE  IN  THE  BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY. 


part  of  the  commissioners;  and  the  plenipotentiaries  entered 
upon  their  duties  with  an  evident  determination  to  seek  such  an 
adjustment.  The  evidence  and  arguments  presented  under  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1908  were  examined,  and  after  taking 
into  consideration  all  actions  of  the  respective  governments  and 
of  their  representatives  authorized  in  that  behalf,  and  of  the  local 
governments  on  either  side  of  the  line,  whether  prior  or  subse- 
quent to  the  treaties  of  1783  and  1814  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  and  the  award  of  the  commissioners  appointed 
under  the  treaty  of  1814,  tending  to  aid  in  the  interpretation 
sought,  the  high  contracting  parties  agreed  “that  the  location  of 
the  international  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  from  a point  in  Passamaquoddy  Bay 
accurately  defined  in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  of  April  11,  1908,  as  lying  between  Treat  Island 
and  Friar  Head,  and  extending  thence  through  Passamaquoddy 
Bay  and  to  the  middle  of  Grand  Manan  Channel,  shall  run  in  a 
series  of  seven  connected  straight  lines  for  the  distances  and  in 
the  directions”  therein  stated.  It  was  also  agreed  that  the  loca- 
tion of  the  boundary  as  defined  in  the  foregoing  article  should  be 
laid  down  and  marked  by  the  commissioners  under  the  provi- 
sions of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  April  11,  1908,  and  that 
the  line  “so  defined  and  laid  down  should  be  taken  and  deemed 
to  be  the  international  boundary  extending  between  the  points 
therein  mentioned  in  Grand  Manan  Channel  and  Passamaquoddy 
Bay.” 

The  ratification  of  this  treaty,  thus  establishing  the  location  of 
the  international  boundary  line  in  the  waters  of  Passamaquoddy 
Bay,  and  signed  at  Washington  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the 
two  countries,  Knox  and  Bryce,  May  21,  1910,  was  advised  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  June  6th;  it  was  ratified  by  Pres- 
ident Taft  July  13th;  by  Great  Britain  June  23rd;  ratifications 
were  exchanged  at  Washington  August  20th;  and  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  treaty  followed  September  3,  1910. 


THE  FINAL  settlement. 


389 


An  examination  of  the  treaty  shows  that  the  plenipotentiaries 
accepted,  and  therefore  confirmed,  those  portions  of  the  line  con- 
cerning which  Commissioners  Mendenhall  and  King  were  in 
agreement.  For  the  portions  of  the  line  in  which  the  commis- 
sioners disagreed,  above  and  below  Lubec  Narrows,  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries established  a compromise  line,  finding,  as  at  other  periods 
in  the  boundary  controversy,  that  only  by  compromise  was  a 
settlement  possible.  As  laid  down  upon  the  map,  the  boundary 
line  thus  established  left  Pope’s  Folly  Island  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States,  while  south  of  the  Lubec  Narrows  the 
line  was  made  to  follow  the  course  of  the  dredged  channel  and 
not  that  of  the  channel  east  of  the  Upper  Middle  Ground.  This 
end  of  the  long  controversy  was  not  according  to  the  wishes  of 
either  of  the  contending  parties.  It  was  not  a matter  of  slight 
importance,  however,  that  an  irritating  boundary  trouble  had 
been  settled  amicably  and  permanently.  An  undetermined  inter- 
national line  opens  an  easy  way  for  jurisdictional  and  customs 
evasions  that  multiply  as  the  neighboring  population  increases. 
The  primary  questions  with  reference  to  the  international  bound- 
ary in  Passamaquoddy  Bay  may  have  been  trivial,  but  at  the 
opening  of  the  twentieth  century  these  questions  were  suflSciently 
in  evidence  to  call  for  a reasonable  and  permanent  settlement. 
This  was  secured.  The  line  has  been  definitely  laid  down  and 
marked,  and  Maine’s  border  contentions  may  at  last  be  regarded 
as  ended. 


INDEX 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  147,  148,  314,  319, 
367. 

Acadia,  1,  5-10,  71. 

Adams,  Henry,  153,  154. 

Adams,  President  John,  25-29,  47,  48, 
51-54,  64,  68,  114,  371. 

Adams,  President  John  Quincy,  76,  n., 
87,  120,  121,  125,  132,  143,  155,  158, 
293. 

Addington,  Henry  Unwin,  152,  159. 

Advertiser,  Portland,  201. 

Advocate,  Hallowell,  201. 

Age,  The  (Augusta),  354-357. 

Alexander,  Sir  William,  and  his  royal 
charter  of  Nova  Scotia,  3,  4,  6,  7, 
10,  27,  45,  50-52,  71,  79-81,  84,  85, 
89. 

Allan,  Colonel  John,  23-25,  30-34,  36. 

Allen,  Charles,  326. 

American  periodical,  the  first,  2,  n. 

Anderson,  Chandler  P.,  384,  n. 

Anderson,  H.  J.,  229. 

Anderson,  John,  197. 

Anderson,  Captain  Robert,  269. 

Andre,  Major,  200. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  8,  9. 

Annapolis,  Royal,  9. 

Argus,  Eastern,  163,  167,  173,  n.,  190, 
201,  327,  353,  356,  357,  361. 

Arnold’s  expedition,  1775,  20. 

Arnold,  Benedict,  200. 

Aroostook  River,  Governor  Parris  di- 
rects attention  to  timber  depreda- 
tions in  that  vicinity,  123;  Maine 
commissioners  visit  the  Aroostook 
country,  250;  the  so-called  Aroos- 
took war,  257-275. 


Ashburton,  Lord,  314,  316,  328-336, 
349-352,  358,  359,  363,  366,  367,  371. 

Ashburton,  Lady,  372,  n. 

Ashburton-Webster  negotiation,  328- 
342;  the  treaty  ratified  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  343-352;  the 
treaty  in  Maine,  353-362;  the  treaty 
in  the  British  Parliament,  and  its  rat- 
ification there,  363-372;  the  treaty  in 
New  Brunswick,  376-378. 

Auckland,  Lord,  89. 

Austin,  James  T. , 82-84,  86. 

Avery,  James,  36,  37. 

Bacon,  James,  125,  135,  144. 

Bagot,  Charles,  166. 

Baker,  John,  116,  n.,  125,  134,  140, 
142-151,  175,  n.,  177-179,  182,  184, 
185,  228,  229,  368,  369. 

Baker,  Nathan,  116,  135. 

Baker’s  Brook,  Madawaska,  150. 

Bangor,  229. 

Bangor  Whig,  321. 

Bankhead,  Charles,  181,  184,  185,  194, 
212,  216. 

Barclay,  Colonel  Thomas,  British 
commissioner,  42,  43,  47,  49,  54,  58, 
61-64,  71,  72,  74,  75,  78-82,  87-89, 
94,  95,  102,  103,  109,  113-115,  152, 
383. 

Barrel!,  S.  B.,  143-145. 

Bartlett,  Nathaniel,  229, 

Bartlett,  Thomas  B.,  259,  284. 

Bates,  James,  197. 

Bay  of  Fundy,  68-70,  72,  80,  81,  83- 
85. 

Bayard,  James  A.,  76,  n. 


392 


INDEX. 


Bean,  Daniel,  177,  179. 

Benson  Egbert,  U.  S.  member  of  St. 
Croix  commission,  43,  44,  54,  59-64, 
69,  70,  72,  74,  75. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  345,  346. 

Bernard,  Sir  Francis,  12-18,  52. 

Bingham  Purchase,  372,  n. 

Bingham,  William,  372,  n. 

Blockhouse  at  Fort  Fairfield,  274,  n. 

Blockhouse  at  Fort  Kent,  274,  n. 

Booth,  Charles  D.,  384,  n. 

Bouchette,  Joseph,  94,  95,  101,  104. 

Bouchette,  Joseph,  Jr.,  95. 

Boundary  controversy  beginnings,  20, 
21;  boundary  of  Maine  on  the  north 
and  east  as  defined  by  the  treaty  of 
1783,  28,  29;  boundary  line  recom- 
mended by  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands, 163;  boundary  of  Maine  as 
proposed  by  Mr.  Webster,  336,  337; 
reply  of  Maine  commissioners,  338- 
340;  boundary  controversy  between 
New  Brunswick  and  Canada,  the 
former  making  same  claim  as  Maine, 
373-375;  significance  of  this  action, 
376. 

Boutelle,  T.,  192,  199. 

Bowdoin,  James,  17,  36-38. 

Bradbury,  Bion,  324. 

Bradley,  William  C.,  94,  110,  111,  117, 

120. 

Brattle,  William,  11,  17. 

Breda,  treaty  of,  8. 

British  complaints  of  encroachments 
under  the  General  Scott  agreement, 
276,  277. 

British  government  proposed  in  1838 
a new  attempt  to  settle  the  bound- 
ary controver.sy,  226;  proposal  com- 
municated to  Fegislature  of  Maine, 
227 ; resolutions  adopted  by  the  Feg- 
islature, 228. 

Broughton,  Fieutenant,  297,  n. 

Bryce,  James,  388. 

Buchanan,  James,  235,  n.,  237,  238, 
240,  244,  267,  349-351. 

Buckmore,  George  W.,  258. 


Calais,  229. 

Calef,  Dr.  John,  21,  22. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  239,  348,  349. 

Campbell,  Sir  Archibald,  176, 177,  179, 
180,  n. 

Campbell,  Colin,  95. 

Campbell,  Ford  William,  81. 

Campo  Bello,  38,  69,  72,  73,  75,  91, 
381,  384. 

Canada  in  relation  to  the  Revolution, 

20. 

Canada,  Fower,  south  boundary.  111, 
373-378. 

Canning,  Stratford,  120,  121,  159. 

Cape  Breton,  82. 

Cape  Sable,  80,  81. 

Carleton,  Governor,  35-37. 

Castine  occupied  by  British  forces,  76, 
78. 

Castlereagh,  Ford,  79,  80,  89,  91. 

Chamberlain,  Captain  Joshua,  76. 

Chamberlain,  General  Joshua  F.,  66, 
76. 

Champlain,  Samuel  de,  1,  n,  2,  46,  55; 
his  plan  of  St.  Croix  Island,  56;  his 
Voyages,  13,  16,  55. 

Charles  I,  king  of  Great  Britain,  5, 
6,  n. 

Charles  II,  7,  8. 

Chaudiere  River,  97,  103,  106. 

Chipman,  John,  44,  n. 

Chipman,  Ward,  44,  47,  49-51,  56-58, 
60,  61,  82-84,  90,  94,  109,  111,  112, 
150. 

Chipman,  Ward,  Jr.,  94,  101-103,105, 
115,  118. 

Chipman,  Ward,  manuscripts,  49,  n. 

Chiputneticook  branch  of  the  St. 
Croix,  58-60,  63,  n.,  65-67. 

Claim  of  the  United  States  to  islands 
in  Passamaquoddy  Bay,  also  British 
claim,  83. 

Clay,  Henry,  125,  128,  131,  133,  134, 
138,  144,  146,  147,  149,  153,  206-208, 
210,  211,  239,  242,  244. 

Clayton,  John  M.,  210. 

Cleveland,  Parker,  296. 


INDEX. 


393 


Clifford,  Nathan,  192,  199. 

Cobscook  River,  11,  16,  33. 

Congress  inquires  concerning  en- 
croachments on  Maine  territory,  32. 

Convention  of  1803,  72,  73. 

Coombs,  Reonard  R. , 175. 

Crane,  Colonel,  36. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  7. 

Cushman,  GustavnsG.,  259,  n. 

D’Anville  map,  323,  370. 

Davee,  Thomas,  229,  231. 

Daveis,  Charles  S.,  98,  137,  140,  142, 
143,  149,  155,  n.,  156,  n.,  191,  247, 
306,  346,  n.;  his  report  of  his  visit 
to  New  Brunswick  in  1827, 142,  143; 
a special  agent  in  Washington  with 
reference  to  boundary  matters,  229, 
231,  234,  235,  244. 

Davis,  John,  239. 

Deane,  John  G.,  140,  164,  171,  n., 
180,  n.,  187,  248;  his  reports  cited, 
128,  136-138,  141,  251. 

Declaration  of  St.  Croix  commission, 
63,  64,  66. 

Deer  Island,  69,  72,  73,  86. 

De  Monts,  Sieur  Pierre  de  Guast,  1-3, 
11,  46,  58,  59,  66. 

Dexter,  Dr.  Aaron,  32. 

Disputed  territory,  area  of,  170,  335, 
336. 

Disraeli,  Benjamin,  earl  of  Beacons- 
field,  369-371. 

Dochet  Island,  a later  designation  of 
St.  Croix  Island,  2,  57,  n.,  58,  59. 

Dorchester,  Rord,  100. 

Douglas,  Sir  Howard,  lieutenant  gov- 
ernor of  New  Brunswick,  125,  136, 
137,  140,  143,  368. 

Dudley,  earl  of,  147. 

Dudley  Island,  37,  38,  89,  91. 

Dummer,  Charles,  192. 

Dunlap,  Governor  Robert  P.,  220-222, 
224-226. 


Elbridge,  Thomas,  inheritor  of  Pem- 
aquid  patent,  127,  n. 

Elwell,  Edward  H.,  158. 

Emerson,  William,  192,  199. 

Emery,  Nicholas,  204. 

Encroachments  on  the  eastern  bound- 
ary, 39,  124,  125,  135,  141. 

Evans,  George,  197,  198,  229,  231, 
232,  234,  236,  267,  268,  315,  351,  352, 
381. 

Everett,  Edward,  314. 

Fairfield,  Governor  John,  229,  233, 
245,  256,  258,  260-263,  268,  273,  276- 
281,  283,  294,  301,  316,  317,  319,  321, 
322,  324,  358,  360. 

Falconer,  Thomas,  375. 

Falmouth  (Portland),  31. 

Featherstonhaugh,  G.  W.,  295,  296. 

Featherstonhaugh,  James,  297,  n. 

Fessenden,  William  Pitt,  191,  355. 

Flecher,  Captain,  117. 

Forsyth,  John,  221,  223,  225,  227,  279, 
285-288,  295-298,  300. 

Fort  Fairfield  (town),  260. 

Fort  Fairfield  (blockhouse),  369,  n. 

Fort  Jarvis  (blockhouse),  369  n. 

Fort  Kent  (blockhouse),  369,  n. 

Fort  Pownall,  12. 

Fort  St.  George,  21. 

Fox,  Henry  S.,  280,  283,  286-288,  297, 
298,  300,  304,  310. 

France,  her  territorial  interests  in 
America,  1,  3,  5;  cedes  her  Ameri- 
can territory  to  Great  Britain  in 
1763,  11. 

France,  company  of  New,  5. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  25-27,  54,  364, 
366,  367,  371. 

Frederick  Island,  37,  38,  73,  89,  91. 

Fredericton  jail,  137,  224,  225. 

French  Acadians,  367,  368. 

French  Jesuit  colony,  Mt.  Desert,  3. 

French  neutrals,  125. 

French  settlement  at  Madawaska,  330, 
335. 


Eastport,  76,  78,  92,  229. 


394 


INDEX. 


Frontier  Journal,  358,  361. 

Frye,  William,  324. 

Fundy,  Bay  of,  68-70,  72,  80,  81,  83- 
85,  90. 

Gallatin,  Albert,  76,  n.,  97,  114,  115, 
131,  152-154,  158,  159. 

Gambler,  Ford,  76,  n. 

Ganong,  W.  F.,  2,  8,  67,  100,  n.,  115, 
376-382. 

Genegenasarumsis,  Fake,  62. 

General  Court  of  the  Massachusetts 
Bay  Colony,  13. 

George  III,  25,  42,  94,  370. 

George  IV,  94. 

George,  Captain  Thomas,  76. 

Gerrish,  Joseph  M.,  192,  199. 

Ghent,  peace  negotiations  at,  76-78. 

Ghent,  treaty  of,  90,  93,  114,  118,  120, 
141,  152,  153,  155,  384. 

Gibbon,  Captain  R.,  92. 

Gorges,  Sir  Ferdinando,  7. 

Gosnold,  Bartholomew,  3. 

Gosselin,  Major  General,  76. 

Goulburn,  Henry,  76,  n.,  118. 

Graham,  James  D.,  301. 

Grand  Falls,  61. 

Grand  Manan,  18,  74,  78,  80-83,  91, 
94,  350,  381. 

Grand  Manan  Channel,  388. 

Grant,  Charles,  152. 

Greely,  Ebenezer  S.,  appointed  cen- 
sus commissioner,  224;  arrested 
while  taking  the  census,  224,  226; 
legislative  resolve  in  his  favor,  228; 
the  state  reimbursed  for  appropria- 
tions in  his  behalf,  231-234. 

Greene,  Roscoe  G.,  179. 

Grenville,  Ford,  40,  47,  63,  n. 

Gresham,  Walter  Q.,  384. 

Gwin,  William  M.,  355. 

Hale,  Frederick,  384,  n. 

Hancock,  Governor  John,  34,  35,  39. 

Hannay,  James,  376,  n. 

Harford,  George,  117. 


Harford,  John,  117,  176. 

Harford,  John,  Jr.,  229. 

Harford,  Phinehas  R.,  185. 

Harris,  John,  95,  n. 

Harrison,  President  W.  H.,  304,  310, 
311,  312. 

Harvey,  Sir  John,  lieutenant  gov- 
ernor of  New  Brunswick,  262,  263; 
assents  to  General  Scott’s  proposed 
agreement,  272,  273,  301. 

Haskins,  David  G. , 235,  n. 

Hawkesbury,  Ford,  71,  72,  89,  97. 

Hay,  Sir  John,  319. 

Hebert  Simon,  178. 

Henry  IV  of  France,  1. 

“Highlands”  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
29,  31,  93,  96-98,  101-103,  106,  107, 
110-112,  170,  217,  235. 

“Highland”  of  English  surveyors, 
254,  255. 

Hodsdon,  Major  General,  261,  274. 

Holland,  Cornelius,  197. 

Holmes,  John,  78,  79,  n.,  82,  86-91, 
206,  209,  210,  383. 

Houlton,  229,  258,  n. 

Howell,  David,  St.  Croix  commission- 
er, 42-44,  47,  59-64. 

Hubbard,  Thomas,  17. 

Hunnewell,  Barnabas,  176,  177,  179, 
186. 

Hunton,  Governor  Jonathan  G. , 161. 

Huskisson,  William,  152. 

Hutchinson,  Governor  Thomas,  17- 
19. 

Indian  testimony  as  to  the  St.  Croix 
River,  15,  16. 

Irish,  James,  123,  248. 

Jackson,  President  Andrew,  190,  194, 
201,  205,  211,  212,  269. 

James  I,  king  of  Great  Britain,  52,  79, 
84. 

James  II,  duke  of  York,  7-9. 

Jarvis,  Charles,  192,  199,  260. 

Jarvis,  Feo,  197. 


INDEX. 


395 


Jay,  John,  25-27,  33,  37,  47,  48,  371. 
Johnson,  John,  95,  101,  105. 

Jones,  Nathan,  39. 

Journal,  Maine  Daily,  199. 

Journal,  Norridgewock,  201. 

Kavanagh,  Edward,  180,  n.,  197,  319, 
326,  357. 

Kennebec  Journal,  355,  356. 
Kennebec  River  as  a boundary,  6,  7, 
10,  52. 

Kent,  Governor  Edward,  204,  225- 
230,  235,  244,  249,  251,  256,  305, 
306,  314,  316,  326,  346,  n.,  357. 
Keyes,  Eieutenant  E.  D.,  269. 

Kilby,  William  H.,  49,  n.,  56,  n. 

King  of  the  Netherlands,  121,  155, 

156,  n.,  158,  161-163,  169,  172,  189, 

192,  205,  209-211. 

King,  Richard,  117,  n. 

King,  Rufus,  69-72,  88,  89,  97. 

King,  Governor  William,  117-119, 121. 
King,  W.  F.,  383,  384. 

Knox,  General  Henry,  33,  34,  42. 
Knox,  Philander  C.,  387. 

Laurens,  Henry,  25,  29,  371. 
Lawrence,  Abbot,  326. 

La-wTence,  William  B.,  147,  148. 
L’Escarbot,  Marc,  2,  n.,  13,  46. 
Legge,  Sir  Francis,  81. 

Legislature  of  Maine,  action  of  June 
12,  1820,  119;  of  January  24,  1825, 
124;  of  January,  1827,  128;  of  1828, 
141,  142;  of  1829,  156;  of  1831,  164, 
165,  167,  170,  172,  175;  of  1832,  192, 

193,  215,  216;  of  1837,  224;  of  1838, 
228,  247,  248,  252;  of  1839,  259-263, 
271,  272;  of  1841,  307-310;  of  1842, 
318,  319,  321-327,  361. 

Lincoln,  General  Benjamin,  33,  34. 
Lincoln,  Governor  Enoch,  127-129, 
131-134,  136-139,  142,  149,  151,  155, 

157,  158,  308,  n. 

Lincoln,  Governor  Levi,  127,  n. 
Liston,  Robert,  60-63. 

Little,  Mark,  284. 


Livingston,  Edward,  181,  184-186, 
188,  194,  195,  205,  235. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  78,  n. 

London  Company,  3. 

London,  agreement  of  1827,  152-154. 

Lord  North,  25. 

Loyalists  at  Penobscot,  now  Castine, 
21-23,  26,  29,  30. 

Loyalists  at  St.  Andrews,  66,  222,  223. 

Lubec  Channel  Lighthouse,  384. 

Ludden,  Jacob,  200,  201. 

Lushington,  Stephen,  375. 

Macaulay,  Lord,  367. 

Machias  settlers  in  1775,  22,  23. 

MacLauchlan,  James,  257-259,  263. 

Madawaska  River,  103,  123. 

Madawaska  settlement,  116,  117,  134, 
135,  144,  145,  168,  181-183,  186,  187, 
190,  224,  225,  229,  330,  333,  367,  380. 

Maddocks,  Amos,  176. 

Madison,  President  James,  69-71,  76, 
78,  94,  96-98,  122,  153. 

Magaguadavic  River  as  boundary,  11, 
15,  24,  25,  30,  31,  45-47,  49-51,  55, 
57,  59,  60,  65,  331. 

Maine  becomes  a state,  116;  sends 
commissioners  to  Washington,  204; 
her  consent  in  boundary  necessary, 
218,  219;  carries  her  case  to  Wash- 
ington, 231-246;  opposes  timber  en- 
croachment, 257-268;  accepts  Gen- 
eral Scott’s  provisional  agreement, 
273;  presents  complaints  under  the 
agreement,  276-289;  awaits  the  ac- 
tion of  the  general  government, 
290-302;  accepts  Mr.  Webster’s  pro- 
posal and  sends  commissioners  to 
Washington,  312-327;  their  action 
and  assent  of  her  commissioners  in 
the  Ashburton  negotiation,  328-352; 
how  their  action  was  regarded  in 
Maine,  353-362;  Maine’s  position 
throughout  the  controversy  vindi- 
cated, 373-382;  the  final  settlement, 
383-389. 


396 


INDEX. 


Maine  Historical  Society’s  manuscript 
boundary  historical  material,  in  the 
preface  and  15,  49,  56,  57;  its  first 
president  mentioned,  123. 

Mars  Hill,  102,  104,  106,  107,  112,  114, 
160,  180,  298,  368,  373. 

Martin,  Raphael,  176. 

Massachusetts  Bay,  Province  of,  51- 
53,  84,  85. 

Massachusetts’  interest  in  Maine  ter- 
ritory, 34-39,  119,  n.,  334-336. 

McCrate,  John  D.,  192,  199. 

Mclntire,  Rufus,  197,  259,  260,  263. 

Mclyane,  Louis,  166,  205,  217-219,  221. 

Megquier,  John  L.,  192,  199. 

Mendenhall,  Thomas  C.,  384,  389. 

Militia  enrolled  in  the  state  in  1837, 
229. 

Miller,  General  James,  92. 

Mills,  John,  326. 

Mitchell,  John,  12,  39,  55;  his  map  of 
1755,  12-14,  34,  47,  48,  50-53,  55, 
67,  154,  158,  159,  371. 

Monroe,  President  James,  73,  74,  88, 
90. 

Moose  Island,  36-38,  69,  72-75,  86, 
89,  91. 

Morris,  Charles,  16,  32,  55. 

Mount  Desert,  27. 

Mudge  and  Featherstonhaugh’s  Brit- 
ish Survey,  252-255,  296,  297. 

Muscongus,  7. 

Negotiations  for  peace  following  the 
Revolutionary  War,  25-29. 

Negotiations  leading  to  the  Ashbur- 
ton-Webster  treaty  of  1842,  328-342. 

New  Brunswick  made  a province,  20, 
35;  its  losses  by  the  treaty  of  1783 
suggested,  58;  desires  better  com- 
munications with  Canada,  98,  99; 
action  with  reference  to  timber  ship- 
ments from  Maine,  341,  n.;  attitude 
of  people  with  reference  to  the 
treaty  of  1842,  376-378. 


New  England,  designation  by  Capt. 
John  Smith,  3;  early  eastern  bound- 
ary, 7-18. 

New  Ireland,  a proposed  royal  prov- 
ince, 21,  22,  28. 

New  Plymouth,  colony  of,  9,  85. 

New  Scotland  in  America,  6. 

Norton,  Milford  P.,  248. 

Nova  Scotia  mentioned,  4,  7-11,  13, 
20,  29,  51,  53,  71,  72,  81,  82,  85,  96, 
97,  109,  114,  158. 

Noyes,  J.  C.,  229. 

O’Brien,  Jeremiah,  192,  199. 

Odell,  William  T.,  104,  105. 

Orne,  Henry  H.,  94. 

Oswald,  Richard,  26,  27,  48;  his  map, 
366. 

Otis,  John,  326,  357. 

Owen,  William,  73. 

Pagan,  Robert,  31,  35,  44,  55-58. 

Palmerston,  Lord,  173,  181,  218,  219, 
221,  252,  290-292,  304,  313,  314,363, 
364,  368,  369,  371. 

Parr,  Governor,  of  Nova  Scotia,  34,  35. 

Parris,  Governor  A.  K.,  121,  n.,  122, 
123,  125-127. 

Parrott,  William  P.,  250,  252. 

Parsons,  Theophilus,  54. 

Partridge,  George,  33. 

Passamaquoddy  Bay,  1,  11,  12,31,33, 
46,  50,  51,  68,  70,  72,  82,  83,  85,  387- 
389. 

Passamaquoddy  Bay  islands,  36,  68- 
70,  89,  90,  150,  381. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  304,  305,  314,  364, 
368. 

Pemaquid,  6,  7;  the  patent,  127,  n. 

Penobscot  Bay,  13. 

Penobscot  River,  12,  46,  59,  60,  80,  95. 

Penobscot  expedition  in  1779,  21. 

Penobscot,  British  garrison  at,  in 
1783,  29,  32;  evacuated  in  1784,  33. 

Pentagoet,  8,  80. 

Pentecost,  7. 


INDEX. 


397 


Phillips,  Governor,  10. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  44,  59,  62. 
Pinkney,  William,  73,  74,  88,  89. 
Piscataquis  River,  52. 

Plymouth  Company,  3. 

Pope’s  Folly  Island,  386,  387,  389. 
Port  Royal,  8,  9. 

Portage  between  the  St.  Croix  and 
the  Penobscot,  12. 

Porter,  Benjamin  J.,  121. 

Porter,  Captain  Joseph,  260,  n. 
Portland  Advertiser,  321,  326. 

Pote,  Jeremiah,  31,  37,  n. 

Powers,  Walter,  175,  229. 

Pownall,  Governor  Thomas,  27,  52. 
Preble,  William  Pitt,  155,  158,  159, 
162,  165-167,  172,  174,  193-198,  204, 
326,  354,  357. 

Presque  Isle,  61. 

Pring,  Martin,  3. 

Province  of  Maine,  7,  9,  13. 

Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  10. 
Purchas’  Pilgrimes,  13. 

Putnam,  General  Rufus,  35. 

Putnam,  William  L,. , 43,  n. 

Quebec,  Province  of,  96. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  3. 

Raymond,  Dr.  W.  O.,  376,  n. 

Razillai,  Isaac  de,  5. 

Renwick,  James,  296. 

Rice,  Francis,  176. 

Rines,  Captain  Stover,  259,  n. 

Rives,  George  L. , 43,  n.,  60,  n. 

Rives,  William  C.,  239,  242,  343,  344. 
Robinson,  Edward,  229. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  385. 

Root,  Elihu,  385, 

Rouse’s  Point,  170. 

Rowell,  George  S.,  150,  n. 

Ruggles,  John,  229. 

Rush,  Richard,  121. 

Russell,  Lord  John,  370. 

Ryswick,  Peace  of,  9. 


Saunders,  Chief  Justice,  150. 

Savage,  Daniel,  144, 177,  179,  182,  186. 

Scarborough,  69,  117. 

Scott,  General  Winfield,  269,  270,  273. 

Severance,  Luther,  203,  204. 

Shelburne,  Lord,  26,  27. 

Shepley,  Ether,  233,  n. 

Sherbrooke,  Sir  John,  76,  77. 

Shirley,  Governor  William,  52. 

Schoodic  River,  11,  32,  35,  37,  46,  51, 
55,  59,  61,  66. 

Senate  of  the  United  States  rejects 
boundary  recommendation  of  the 
king  of  the  Netherlands,  206-211; 
debates  boundary  matters  in  1838; 
236-239;  committee  on  foreign  rela- 
tions reports,  240-242;  report  is 
considered,  242-244;  effect  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  245,  246; 
Ashburton  treaty  considered  and 
accepted,  343-352. 

Smith,  F.  O.  J. , 229,  293,  315-317,  321, 

Smith,  Captain  John,  3,  n. 

Smith,  Governor  Samuel  E.,  161,  162. 
168,  172,  176,  177,  179,  180-187,  189, 
190,  191,  195,  198,  202-205,  211-213. 

Southack,  Captain  Cyprian  and  his 
map,  12. 

Sparks,  Jared,  and  his  red-line  map, 
323,  346,  n.,  364-367,  371. 

Sprague,  Peleg,  206,  208-210,  213. 

St.  Andrews,  30-36,  43,  45,  46,  59,  65, 
66,  82,  94. 

St.  Croix  commission,  42,  43  , 63  , 64, 
67-70,  79,  83,  85,  93,  150. 

St.  Croix  Island,  1,  2,  5,  7,  13,  56,  57, 

66. 

St.  Croix  River,  1,  4,  5,  7,  9-12,  18, 
21,  22,  24,  27-29,  31,  33,  45,  47-50, 
55,  66-71,  80;  its  source,  95,  97,  102, 
105,  112,  153,  160. 

Steele,  James,  192,  199. 

St.  Francis  River,  117. 

St.  George  River,  7,  10. 

St.  Germain,  treaty  of,  5,  6,  8. 

St.  John  River,  52. 


Sagadahoc  territory,  9,  10,  13. 


398 


INDEX. 


St.  I^awrence  River,  2,  6,  7,  11,  97. 

St.  Rawrence,  Gulf  of,  82. 

St.  Mary’s  River,  68. 

Steuben,  Baron,  346,  n. 

Stevenson,  Andrew,  291. 

Strickland,  Major  Hastings,  259. 

Strong,  Caleb,  76. 

Sugar  Mountain,  101. 

Sullivan,  James,  15,  46-49,  51-55,  60- 
63,  69-71,  96-98,  153. 

Surveys  ordered  in  1838  for  ascertain- 
ing and  marking  the  boundary,  247; 
commissionersdesignated, 248;  their 
service,  249-251;  British  surveys, 
253-255;  Congress  makes  an  added 
appropriation,  256. 

Symonds,  J.  W.,  137,  n. 

Taft,  William  H.,  387,  388. 

Talcott,  Andrew,  256,  n.,  296. 

Tallmadge,  Frederick  A.,  242. 

Tazewell,  Rittleton  W.,  194,  206,  210. 

Temple,  Colonel  Thomas,  7,  8. 

Thompson,  Adjutant  General  A.  B., 
263. 

Tibbetts,  Captain,  259. 

Titcomb,  Samuel,  95,  n. 

Treaty  negotiations  following  the 
Revolutionary  War,  25;  treaty  of 
Paris,  27,  28,  37,  68;  treaty  of 

amity,  commerce  and  navigation, 
40-42;  Ashburton-Webster  treaty 
(treaty  of  Washington),  341,  351, 
352;  treaty  of  1908,  386-388;  treaty 
of  1910,  387,  388. 

Trescott,  Major,  36. 

Twiss,  Dr.  Travers,  375. 

Tyler,  President  John,  312,  320,  359. 

Utrecht,  treaty  of,  9,  50. 

Vail,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  252, 
276. 

Van  Buren,  President  Martin,  201, 
224,  263-268,  279,  283,  292,  294, 
303-305,  310. 

Van  Ness,  Cornelius  P.,  94,  109,  113- 
115,  152. 


Van  Soclen,  Baron  Verstolk,  165,  172. 

Varnum,  Phineas,  284. 

Vaughan,  Sir  Charles,  125,  127,  129, 
134,  166,  216-219. 

Vergennes,  Count,  26. 

Verrill,  Harry  Mighels,  384,  n. 

Wagansis,  a branch  of  the  Resti- 
gouche,  101. 

Washburn,  Israel,  43,  65,  66,  132,  182, 
n.,  183,  204,  225,  n.,  324,  362. 

Washington,  President  George,  20,  29, 
39-41,  69. 

Waymouth,  George,  3. 

Webster,  Augustine,  229. 

Webster,  Daniel,  91;  enters  the 
boundary  controversy  in  1832,  210, 
211;  in  1838,  235,  n.,  to  237;  in  1839, 
265;  becomes  secretary  of  state,  311; 
his  proposal  for  settling  the  bound- 
ary controversy  in  1839,  312;  in 
1841,  313-315;  secures  its  adoption, 
316-327 ; his  negotiation  with  Ford 
Ashburton,  328-342;  how  his  work 
was  regarded  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  343-352;  in  Maine, 
353-362,  and  in  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, 363,  364,  367,  368. 

Webster,  Colonel  Ebenezer,  260. 

Wellington,  Duke  of,  77,  78,  n. 

Weston,  Chief  Justice,  316. 

Wheelock,  Jesse,  176,  177,  179,  181, 
182,  184,  186. 

Whipple,  S.  S.,  257,  258. 

Wiggin,  Benjamin,  284,  285. 

William'  and  Mary,  charter  of,  9,  48, 
84. 

Williams,  Reuel,  192,  199,  204,  229, 
231,  n.,  234,  n.,  236,  238,  239,  242, 
244,  264,  315-317,  321,  346-348,  351. 

Williamson,  William  D.,  175. 

Wilmot,  Montague,  80, 

Winslow,  Edward,  44,  45,  64. 

Winsor,  Justin,  367,  n. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  293. 

Woodbury,  Devi,  205,  344. 

Wool,  Brigadier  General  JohnE.,  229. 


i- 


t 


i- 


/ 

i 


975.58  B968M  05920 


UPPLIED  BY 

VEN  BOOKHUNTER 

BOX  22— NEW  YORK 
f-Print  Books 


